We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Parasoft SOAtest 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 most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"The pricing could be improved."
"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"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."
"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."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Visual Studio Test Professional, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Katalon Studio. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.
