We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One 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."UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"It's simple to set up."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"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."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 21st in Test Automation Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. 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 Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Apache JMeter. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors, 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.
