We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and ReadyAPI Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"SoapUI Pro is a good tool when it comes to API design and orchestration. Additionally, it is beneficial for functional and for performance testing."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"The solution scales well."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"ReadyAPI has the power to enrich all the technical work. You can achieve any complex task using ReadyAPI. I can also do UI automation with ReadyAPI. In a few test cases, we want to check the API and the equivalent UI. I download a job and write a piece of Groovy or Java code. It's almost the same in ReadyAPI. I can do that in a single test case. ReadyAPI is a powerful tool because you can do anything you want, but only you need to download the right set of jobs and produce the right set of code."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"There are no bugs or glitches, but a few features available only in the Pro version could be made available in the open-source version. Some of the features do not necessarily need to be only available to Pro users. The data generator would be really useful for the open-source version users."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"The UI should be improved."
"I find that I'm fighting with the opportunities to order requests."
"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI Test writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, ReadyAPI, Broadcom Service Virtualization, Tricentis Tosca and Apigee. See our OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.