We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"Integrates well with other products."
"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"The solution is scalable."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The pricing could be improved."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 14th in Test Automation Tools with 34 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 21st in Test Automation Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Tricentis Tosca. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.