Parasoft SOAtest vs UFT (QTP)

Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews vs UFT (QTP) which is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 23 reviews. The top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "We use the product to test the interfaces of back-end services, simulating different points of sale". The top reviewer of UFT (QTP) writes "With regularly occurring application releases, any QA team member can execute tests (regression suites) stored in ALM/Quality Center, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete, SoapUI Pro and LoadRunner. UFT (QTP) is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and Worksoft Certify. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs UFT (QTP) report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
+Add products to compare
Most Helpful Review
Parasoft soatest vs. uft %28qtp%29 report from it central station 2018 05 04 thumbnail
Find out what your peers are saying about Parasoft SOAtest vs UFT (QTP) and others in Functional Testing Tools.
269,608 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Quotes From Members Comparing Parasoft SOAtest vs UFT (QTP)

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization.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.If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest.Automatic testing is the most valuable feature.The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest.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.Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in.

Read more »

We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution.​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources.Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator.I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well.Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier.The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation.

Read more »

Cons
Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements.Reporting facilities can be better.Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to 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.Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu.The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective.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.

Read more »

Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation).I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications.Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers.Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function.I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved.Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification.It doesn’t support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this.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.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%.The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process.It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you.I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses.The cost of Parasoft seems to have gotten higher with a projection that wasn't really stipulated for our company. They've done a tremendous job at negotiating those deals.From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn’t the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer.

Read more »

For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand.It's an expensive solution.The licensing and pricing model is confusing.It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly.

Read more »

Parasoft soatest vs. uft %28qtp%29 report from it central station 2018 05 04 thumbnail
Find out what your peers are saying about Parasoft SOAtest vs UFT (QTP) and others in Functional Testing Tools.
269,608 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
RANKING
Views
8,080
Comparisons
1,978
Reviews
16
Followers
476
Avg. Rating
8.2
Views
40,767
Comparisons
21,900
Reviews
23
Followers
2,363
Avg. Rating
8.1
Top Comparisons
Top Comparisons
Smartbear%20software logo
Compared 15% of the time.
Micro focus logo
Compared 11% of the time.
See more Parasoft SOAtest competitors »
Tricentislogo
Compared 19% of the time.
Smartbear%20software logo
Compared 14% of the time.
Worksoft twitter logo reasonably small
Compared 9% of the time.
See more UFT (QTP) competitors »
Also Known As
Also Known AsSOAtestMicro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
Website/Video
Website/VideoParasoft
  • Vendor 7779 screenshot 1524945471
Micro Focus
  • Vendor 7619 screenshot 1521912797
OverviewQuestionmark icon
OverviewParasoft SOAtest is widely recognized as the leading enterprise-grade solution for API testing and API integrity. Thoroughly test composite applications with robust support for REST and web services, plus an industry-leading 120+ protocols/message types.

QuickTest Professional is now known as Micro Focus Unified Functional Testing, and is an automated testing tool that provides unified AI, GUI, and Business Process testing.

With QuickTest Professional, you can free up IT resources to focus on other areas, while the automated software takes care of all your application software testing requirements. Testing happens continuously and quickly, and so nips any potential issues in the bud. QuickTest Professional saves money and time, and optimizes business productivity and overall user experience.

OFFER
Learn more about Parasoft SOAtest
Learn more about UFT (QTP)
Sample Customers
Sample CustomersLufthansa, Siemens, DirecTV, NZ Bank CSS Insurance, Revolution IT, Credit Suisse, and General Electric Company.
Top IndustriesQuestionmark icon
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm
38%
Government
15%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Transportation Company
8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm
45%
Healthcare Company
8%
Non Tech Company
4%
Retailer
4%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm
31%
Insurance Company
19%
Software R&D Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Manufacturing Company
44%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Pharma/Biotech Company
5%
Healthcare Company
5%
Company SizeQuestionmark icon
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business
20%
Midsize Enterprise
4%
Large Enterprise
76%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business
15%
Midsize Enterprise
21%
Large Enterprise
65%
REVIEWERS
Small Business
14%
Midsize Enterprise
18%
Large Enterprise
69%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business
7%
Midsize Enterprise
11%
Large Enterprise
82%
Parasoft soatest vs. uft %28qtp%29 report from it central station 2018 05 04 thumbnail
Find out what your peers are saying about Parasoft SOAtest vs UFT (QTP) and others in Functional Testing Tools.
Download now
269,608 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.

Sign Up with Email