OpenText UFT One vs ReadyAPI comparison

OpenText and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.3, while SmartBear is ranked #9 with an average rating of 7.7. OpenText holds a 9.5% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 1.4% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 86% of SmartBear 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

ReadyAPI

Read 34 ReadyAPI reviews

1,887 Views
1,008 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

ReadyAPI

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and ReadyAPI 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.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI

October 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 814,649 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)

ReadyAPI

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

9th

Average Rating

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (7th)

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 ReadyAPI is 1.4%, down from 2.1% 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

SandeepSingh9

Sr. QA Engineer at Arizona Department of Education

Sep 23, 2022

Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper

One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration.

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 most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"The stop automation is a great feature."

"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."

"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."

"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."

"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."

More OpenText UFT One pros

"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."

"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."

"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."

"The great thing about ReadyAPI is that it has a wide variety of functions. You can test any API that you come across. You are not limited to one type of API. It supports many APIs."

"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the ready-to-use assertions and filters which can perform the validation. If we want to filter out any value, the filters are available. Apart from that database integration, if you want to go ahead and perform validation in the database layer it is possible with the ready-to-use feature available. The execution and reporting are rich features."

"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."

"It's easy to learn how to use it."

"It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools."

Cons

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."

"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."

"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."

"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."

More OpenText UFT One cons

"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."

"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."

"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."

"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."

"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."

"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."

"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."

"Sometimes, if I changed something in ReadyAPI, it would not quickly pick up the change. It used to give me the same error repeatedly, and when I closed the application completely and restarted it, it would pick up that change."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

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

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

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

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

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

"If I remember correctly, ReadyAPI costs between $5,000 to $7,000 for five thousand virtual users running it at a given point in time. Other tools, for example, Apache JMeter, can run millions of users at a given time. ReadyAPI is a tool that requires you to pay more money if you want more users to run it for performance testing. For functional testing, each ReadyAPI license costs $1,000, and you do get basic testing, and it's inclusive of one hundred users. In my company, if there's a need for more than one hundred users, my team uses Apache JMeter because it's futile to end up paying $5,000 or $6,000 annually just for performance testing, which can be done in Apache JMeter as well. Given the circumstances, my team does performance testing only towards the end of the fiscal year when the regulatory testing of applications takes place. If I have to run ReadyAPI just for two days or just for ten or fifteen odd days, then it's not worth paying $5,000 for the license with the small number of users provided by ReadyAPI."

"It costs approximately $200 000 Taiwan Dollars for three years."

"ReadyAPI is moderately priced, with added costs for more plugins."

"We have approximately 12 licenses in place. There are other solutions that are more expensive than ReadyAPI that have more features, but if the scope of the project is limited to SOAP and REST service, then this is the best option."

"It is expensive. Each user needs to be licensed, and there are different licenses within the product. It starts with 750 euros for a single user per year, but for the full product features, you need to pay a lot more. There are three versions. This cost is for functional testing, and then there is a cost for load testing and virtual services. If you want to use these areas with the functional test license, you are limited. You hit some limits in these functions. If you have all three licenses, then you have full functionality for the API."

"We pay $3,000 annually for a floating license. actually. That allows another person from my company to use it as well. It's a cloud-based license."

"The price was around $6,000 for one license, but I don't remember exactly. It is definitely expensive. Our organization was planning on having multiple licenses for this year."

"For each license, they charge the same amount, which is less than $1,000 for each desktop license."

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Energy/Utilities Company

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

17%

Insurance Company

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 ReadyAPI?

The performance testing capabilities are very good.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?

The pricing is very competitive. It has a good impact on our time-to-market metrics. We have the complete SmartBear environment. The single cost for all the services makes it easier.

See all answers

What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?

The vendor conducts webinars. They must do it more, though. The solution must update SmartBear Academy. The content on ReadyAPI in SmartBear Academy is outdated.

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

Apache JMeter vs ReadyAPI

Compared 36% of the time

Katalon Studio vs ReadyAPI

Compared 15% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs ReadyAPI

Compared 14% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs ReadyAPI

Compared 10% of the time

ReadyAPI Test vs ReadyAPI

Compared 7% of the time

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

October 2024

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Buyer's Guide

ReadyAPI

October 2024

Download ReadyAPI product report

Also Known As

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

Ready API

Learn More

OpenText

SmartBear

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

ReadyAPI is an all-in-one automated testing platform that allows teams to create, manage, and execute automated functional, security, and performance tests in one centralized interface.

ReadyAPI Features

Some of ReadyAPI’s key features include:

Continuous integration
Comprehensive dashboard
API discovery
Central, standardized reporting function
Plugin architecture
ReadyAPI Projects
Multiple options for scripting to create functional, load, or security tests

ReadyAPI Benefits

Some of the benefits of using ReadyAPI include:

Easy and flexible test creation and execution: ReadyAPI has visual editors and wizards that make testing easy, saving time and simplifying onboarding.
Test APIs continuously: With ReadyAPI you can run consistent tests on local environments, Docker containers, or other distributed staging environments.
Team friendly: ReadyAPI enables software teams with the ability to easily share testing projects and artifacts, share licenses between team members, and report issues directly from the testing IDE.
Powerful, data-driven testing capabilities: With ReadyAPI, you can save time by checking for numerous real world conditions.
Supports multiple specifications, schemas, and protocols: ReadyAPI includes legacy SOAP services, microservices powered by Apache Kafka, and mainstream REST services, as well as IoT use cases leveraging MQTT. It allows you to test and virtualize the most popular API protocols and also to import APIs from specifications and schemas instantly.

Reviews from Real Users

Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by Dell EMC Unity users.

PeerSpot user Vallalarasu P., Test Architect at a tech services company, states, “ReadyAPI is one of the best tools for API testing because they have made a single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and also service actualization. We also have virtual work that can be an add-in within ReadyAPI. For integration for CACD, they have something called TestEngine, which can also be an add-on for ReadyAPI. We use Python request library and things like that but if you're a bigger organization with hundreds of APIs, then ReadyAPI is a one-stop solution for complete API testing. If you consider TestComplete and other products for an equivalent outcome, you might get something nearly comparable, butReadyAPI is the outstanding product.”

An IT Manager at an insurance company says the solution has “Fast automation, less coding, and is pretty lightweight. When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."

Balamurugan A., Manager at a financial services firm, comments, “We like the user interface. The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools.

They have interfaces with our performance tools, so we were able to leverage all of these integrations and plugins. It is very good from an integrative solution standpoint.”

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI

October 2024

Free Report: OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI 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.