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 92 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

OpenText UFT One

Parasoft SOAtest

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.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report (Updated: October 2024).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest

October 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 814,649 peers since 2012

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

Number of Reviews

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

Number of Reviews

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

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

Sep 29, 2022

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

Sr Quality Assurance Engineer at Wabtec Industrial

Aug 6, 2021

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

"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."

"It offers a wide range of testing."

"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications. It is very productive in terms of execution."

"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

More OpenText UFT One pros

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

"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."

"Technical support is helpful."

"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."

"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."

"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."

"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."

More Parasoft SOAtest pros

Cons

"They should include AI-based testing features."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."

"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."

"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."

"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."

More OpenText UFT One cons

"The summary reports could be improved."

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

"Reporting facilities can be better."

"UI testing should be more in-depth."

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

"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."

"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."

More Parasoft SOAtest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"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."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

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

814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Energy/Utilities Company

Financial Services Firm

27%

Manufacturing Company

17%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

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

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 10% of the time

UiPath Test Suite vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 6% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Postman vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 24% of the time

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 19% of the time

Coverity vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 13% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 8% of the time

ReadyAPI vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 8% of the time

More Parasoft SOAtest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

October 2024

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Buyer's Guide

Parasoft SOAtest

October 2024

Download 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

October 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: October 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

814,649 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.