OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

OpenText and Parasoft are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #18 with an average rating of 8.3, while Parasoft is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to Parasoft’s 0.7% mindshare. Additionally, 82% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of Parasoft users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Read 17 OpenText UFT Digital Lab reviews

598 Views
339 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

Parasoft SOAtest

Read 31 Parasoft SOAtest reviews

540 Views
336 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Parasoft SOAtest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Parasoft SOAtest and OpenText UFT Digital Lab compete in automated testing solutions. OpenText UFT Digital Lab appears to have an upper hand due to its extensive feature set, while Parasoft SOAtest is favored for better pricing strategies and reliable customer support.

Features: Parasoft SOAtest is valued for robust API testing, seamless integration with development environments, and support for a variety of protocols including JSON. OpenText UFT Digital Lab excels with comprehensive device virtualization, cross-platform testing, and strong integration with enterprise tools, providing extensive testing capabilities across real devices and emulators.

Room for Improvement: Parasoft SOAtest could enhance its deployment complexity, user interface simplicity, and expand feature support for broader testing scenarios. OpenText UFT Digital Lab could benefit from more competitive pricing, improved flexibility in setup for diverse enterprise environments, and enriched community support for troubleshooting.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT Digital Lab is praised for its straightforward deployment and efficient customer service, ideal for quick implementation. Parasoft SOAtest offers strong customer support, though it presents a more complex deployment process, which may lengthen time to production.

Pricing and ROI: Parasoft SOAtest is attractive for its cost-effective setup and promising ROI, suitable for budget-conscious users. OpenText UFT Digital Lab, despite higher initial costs, delivers substantial ROI through its comprehensive features that justify the expense, offering a feature-rich performance for its price.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Parasoft SOAtest

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 846,617 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)

Parasoft SOAtest

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (28th), API Testing Tools (11th), Test Automation Tools (21st)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Digital Lab is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 0.7%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

Read full review

Ajit Kumar Rout

Sr Quality Assurance Engineer at Wabtec Industrial

Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved

In general, this is a hassle free, user friendly tool and it doesn't require much knowledge if you're using the manual testing. Automated testing is also good but requires some knowledge in that field. It has some great features. It's a good tool compared to some of the other paid tools; input and output can be stored before extension and there is also a verification assessment that can be implemented by using some different methodologies inside the tool. If the licensing cost is suitable then I recommend this solution. If you have automation people with in-depth knowledge in coding that will be helpful. I rate this solution a seven out of 10.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"The product is easy to use."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."

"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."

"One of the most valuable features I found in Parasoft SOAtest is its ability to extend the product."

"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."

"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."

"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."

"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."

More Parasoft SOAtest pros

Cons

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."

"The summary reports could be improved."

"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."

"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."

"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."

"The performance could be a bit better."

"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."

"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."

More Parasoft SOAtest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"The product could be more affordable."

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

"The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."

"From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."

"They do have a confusing licensing structure."

"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."

"It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you."

"The price is around $5,000 USD."

"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."

"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."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

21%

Non Profit

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

25%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.

See all answers

What do you like most about Parasoft SOAtest?

Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?

Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings. Going through that is a challenge. It only happens in the initial stage when we are setting up the tool, but it can be imp...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Parasoft SOAtest?

We use Parasoft SOAtest for automotive compliance and sanity-checking scores.

See all answers

Comparisons

Perfecto vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 24% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 18% of the time

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 17% of the time

Appium vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 16% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 14% of the time

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Competitors

Postman vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 21% of the time

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 21% of the time

Coverity vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 14% of the time

ReadyAPI vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 8% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 8% of the time

More Parasoft SOAtest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT Digital Lab product report

Buyer's Guide

Parasoft SOAtest

March 2025

Download Parasoft SOAtest product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

SOAtest

Overview

Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.

OpenText

Parasoft SOAtest delivers fully integrated API and web service testing capabilities that automate end-to-end functional API testing. Streamline automated testing with advanced codeless test creation for applications with multiple interfaces (REST & SOAP APIs, microservices, databases, and more).

SOAtest reduces the risk of security breaches and performance outages by transforming functional testing artifacts into security and load equivalents. Such reuse, along with continuous monitoring of APIs for change, allows faster and more efficient testing.

Parasoft

Sample Customers

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Parasoft SOAtest

March 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Parasoft SOAtest

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Parasoft SOAtest and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.

See our list of best Functional 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.