We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and ReadyAPI 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."The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."
"The great thing about ReadyAPI is that it has a wide variety of functions. You can test any API that you come across. You are not limited to one type of API. It supports many APIs."
"For anyone who does not have experience with automation, ReadyAPI provides a sense of comfort, especially for testers who find it hard to go directly into coding."
"The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"The reporting is not very robust and needs to be improved."
"In terms of features, I have already raised different change requests on the ReadyAPI side. One of the largest functions I've requested is the validation of the payload for the REST APIs."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"The overall scope of this solution is limited and could be improved."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 33 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.6. 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 writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca and ZAPTEST. See our OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Functional 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.