Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText UFT One vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

OpenText and Parasoft are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.3, while Parasoft is ranked #23 with an average rating of 7.0. OpenText holds a 9.5% mindshare in FT, compared to Parasoft’s 0.7% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of Parasoft users who would recommend it.
OpenText UFT One
Read 93 OpenText UFT One reviews
  • 8,465 Views
  • 5,308 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
Parasoft SOAtest
Read 30 Parasoft SOAtest reviews
  • 644 Views
  • 421 Comparison Views
92% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

OpenText UFT One and Parasoft SOAtest are leading tools in the software testing market. While OpenText UFT One is noted for its reasonable pricing and strong support, Parasoft SOAtest's superior features make it a choice worth the higher price for many users.

Features: OpenText UFT One is known for comprehensive automation capabilities, broad technology support, and integration with CI/CD pipelines. Parasoft SOAtest offers robust SOA and API testing features, comprehensive reporting, and service virtualization. Users prefer Parasoft SOAtest for its specialized functionalities despite the broad functionality of OpenText UFT One.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One needs more frequent updates, a lighter footprint, and better performance for extensive test suites. Parasoft SOAtest users suggest improvements in ease of learning and intuitive navigation. OpenText UFT One users desire better performance, whereas Parasoft SOAtest users focus on ease of use.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One is recognized for straightforward deployment but might require customization for optimal performance. Customer service is responsive, helping with deployment issues. Parasoft SOAtest users report a more seamless deployment experience and prompt, helpful customer service. Parasoft SOAtest stands out for deployment ease with robust support during deployment phases.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One users find the pricing reasonable, aligning it with positive ROI due to its broad capabilities. Parasoft SOAtest is viewed as more expensive, but users justify the cost with high ROI from specialized features and efficiency gains. Price-conscious users favor OpenText UFT One, but ROI-centric users lean towards Parasoft SOAtest.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report (Updated: November 2024).
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest
November 2024
Download the complete report
Helped 816,636 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:
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
OpenText customer service is praised for responsiveness, though experiences vary, with mixed satisfaction levels and reliance on partners for support.
Sentiment score
8.5
Parasoft SOAtest's service is generally satisfactory and responsive, but some report delays and communication issues in certain regions.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the Parasoft SOAtest report
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
5.5
OpenText UFT One needs better object identification, browser compatibility, AI, integration, and interface, with concerns on cost and stability.
Sentiment score
4.8
Users want Parasoft SOAtest to be more user-friendly with improved reporting, guidance, optimization, UI testing, and code coverage.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the Parasoft SOAtest report
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText UFT One offers scalability and flexibility, though users note speed and browser issues; licensing affects usage costs.
Sentiment score
8.0
Parasoft SOAtest is scalable, well-integrated with CI/CD pipelines, and suits teams of various sizes, scoring 7-8 in ratings.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the Parasoft SOAtest report
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
OpenText UFT One is praised for robust automation but criticized for high costs and complex licensing options.
No sentiment score available
<p>Parasoft SOAtest pricing is customizable starting from $5,000 annually, including support, training, and updates, based on enterprise needs.</p>
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the Parasoft SOAtest report
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.1
OpenText UFT One's stability is generally reliable but varies with system requirements and can be affected by version changes.
Sentiment score
8.0
Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8/10 for stability, praised for being reliable, stable, and free from bugs or crashes.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.5
OpenText UFT One excels in cross-platform compatibility, versatile scripting, and efficient automation for desktop, web, and mobile testing.
No sentiment score available
Parasoft SOAtest offers comprehensive testing, efficient automation, versatile data handling, scalability, and user-friendly features, including Service Virtualization.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the Parasoft SOAtest report
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd)
Parasoft SOAtest
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
23rd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
23rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (31st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 9.5%, down from 9.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
Read full review
Ajit Kumar Rout - PeerSpot reviewer
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
report
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
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
See all answers
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
The solution should have additional features, but not much. It already has some sort of artificial intelligence that must be developed. It needs to be in trend. The solution needs better marketing,...
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Parasoft SOAtest?
The price is average. It isn't overly expensive.
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
 

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 31% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 11% of the time
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 10% of the time
UiPath Test Suite vs OpenText UFT One Logo
UiPath Test Suite vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 8% of the time
SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One Logo
SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 6% of the time
More OpenText UFT One Competitors
Postman vs Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Postman vs Parasoft SOAtest
Compared 24% of the time
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Parasoft SOAtest Logo
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Parasoft SOAtest
Compared 19% of the time
Coverity vs Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Coverity vs Parasoft SOAtest
Compared 13% of the time
Polyspace Code Prover vs Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Polyspace Code Prover vs Parasoft SOAtest
Compared 8% of the time
ReadyAPI vs Parasoft SOAtest Logo
ReadyAPI vs Parasoft SOAtest
Compared 8% of the time
More Parasoft SOAtest Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
November 2024
OpenText UFT One reportDownload OpenText UFT One product report
Buyer's Guide
Parasoft SOAtest
November 2024
Parasoft SOAtest reportDownload Parasoft SOAtest product report
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
SOAtest
 

Learn More

OpenText
Parasoft
 

Overview

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper

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.

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest
November 2024
Free Report: OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
DOWNLOAD NOW
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best API 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.