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."I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."
"It's simple to set up."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The solution scales well."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"The utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."
"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."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"The solution has some good scanning features."
"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."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"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."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"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."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."
"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."
"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."
"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.
