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."The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"The solution is expensive."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"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."
"Parasoft SOAtest has an internal refresh function where you can refresh the software to show the changes you’ve made in your projects. Unfortunately this function does not work properly, because it often does not show the changes after you’ve hit te refresh button a few times."
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, Klocwork 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.
