OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

OpenText and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #18 with an average rating of 8.3, while SmartBear is ranked #21 with an average rating of 7.3. OpenText holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 82% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of SmartBear 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

ReadyAPI Test

Read 31 ReadyAPI Test reviews

380 Views
324 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

ReadyAPI Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

ReadyAPI Test and OpenText UFT Digital Lab compete in the software testing space, offering comprehensive solutions. ReadyAPI Test has an edge due to its pricing and user support, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab stands out for its feature-rich offerings that justify a higher price.

Features: ReadyAPI Test is ideal for API testing with seamless integration, data-driven testing capabilities, and intuitive design. OpenText UFT Digital Lab offers extensive cross-platform coverage, superior mobile testing, and advanced analytics, appealing to enterprises requiring broad testing.

Room for Improvement: ReadyAPI Test can enhance cross-platform testing and analytics features, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab might benefit from simplifying its deployment process and making its pricing more competitive. Both could improve integration with third-party tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ReadyAPI Test is known for its straightforward deployment and exceptional customer service, enabling quick onboarding for teams. OpenText UFT Digital Lab has a more complex deployment process, offset by its comprehensive support ensuring efficient issue resolution.

Pricing and ROI: ReadyAPI Test offers transparent and competitive pricing, providing better immediate ROI with lower initial costs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab, despite higher setup costs, delivers long-term ROI through its extensive features, appealing to larger enterprises.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. ReadyAPI Test

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)

ReadyAPI Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

21st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (9th), API Testing Tools (10th)

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 ReadyAPI Test is 0.5%, down from 0.9% 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

Faiz Ahmed

Test Automation Specialist / Lead at Tata Consultancy Services

You can achieve any complex task with this tool

There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases. For example, it would be nice to have a Selenium plugin available from the menu, where I can select "open browser" and provide the URL. That URL would be immediately open in the browser. This is like a keyword, and then the Selenium plugin should be there.

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

"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."

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

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

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

"The product is easy to use."

"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."

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

"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."

"The solution has some good scanning features."

"SoapUI Pro is a good tool when it comes to API design and orchestration. Additionally, it is beneficial for functional and for performance testing."

"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."

"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."

"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."

"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."

"SoapUI is uncomplicated and user-friendly."

Cons

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

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

"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."

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

"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."

"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."

"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."

"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."

"There are no bugs or glitches, but a few features available only in the Pro version could be made available in the open-source version. Some of the features do not necessarily need to be only available to Pro users. The data generator would be really useful for the open-source version users."

"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."

"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."

"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."

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."

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

"The product could be more affordable."

"The cost is not that bad."

"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."

"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."

"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."

"SoapUI Pro is open source but it has a subscription-based model which involves some more features. At the moment we are using the free version. The Pro version requires a license, and it is an annual license to use it."

"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."

"It is free of charge."

"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."

More ReadyAPI Test pricing and cost advice

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%

Computer Software Company

14%

Insurance Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

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 SoapUI Pro?

The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SoapUI Pro?

ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with SoapUI Pro?

ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would b...

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 ReadyAPI Test

Compared 75% of the time

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 10% of the time

ReadyAPI vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 5% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 3% of the time

Katalon Studio vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 3% of the time

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT Digital Lab product report

Buyer's Guide

ReadyAPI Test

March 2025

Download ReadyAPI Test product report

Also Known As

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

SoapUI NG Pro

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

For REST, SOAP and other popular API and IoT protocols, SoapUI NG Pro provides the industry's most comprehensive and easy-to-learn functional testing capabilities. Based on open core technology proven by millions of community members, SoapUI NG Pro helps you ensure that your APIs perform as intended, meet your business requirements, timeframes, and team skill sets right from day one.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

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

Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. ReadyAPI Test

March 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. ReadyAPI Test

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. ReadyAPI Test 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.