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

OpenText UFT One vs ReadyAPI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.5
OpenText UFT One offers over 300% ROI by enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and supporting diverse systems through AI capabilities.
Sentiment score
7.8
ReadyAPI provides significant ROI through cost savings, efficient testing, and integration capabilities, making it valuable despite deployment challenges.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.2
Users report varied OpenText UFT One support experiences, noting quick responses but sometimes slow resolutions, especially for complex issues.
Sentiment score
6.6
ReadyAPI receives mixed feedback on customer service with varying response times, praised community help, and documentation inconsistencies.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT One scales well with proper licensing management, though execution speed and large test volumes may pose challenges.
Sentiment score
6.8
ReadyAPI offers scalable API management for large operations, though cloud migration and flexibility improvements are needed for easier use.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
ReadyAPI's performance testing capabilities can impact API scalability assessments.
I rate ReadyAPI between five to six for scalability due to complexities associated with scripting.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.5
Users have mixed opinions on OpenText UFT One's stability, noting issues with crashing and updates affecting performance.
Sentiment score
7.2
ReadyAPI offers stability with occasional bugs; users appreciate its reliability, especially post-configuration, aided by regular updates.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
Once all configurations and preparations are done, it is very stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText UFT One needs performance and stability improvements, enhanced browser compatibility, intuitive interface, and better technical support.
ReadyAPI users seek improved integration, performance, UI, version control, scalability, cloud support, security testing, and automation capabilities.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText UFT One, though pricey, offers robust automation features and integration, making it valuable for enterprises needing extensive capabilities.
ReadyAPI offers flexible enterprise pricing from $1,000-$6,000 annually, cost-effective for functional testing and service virtualization.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
The pricing of ReadyAPI is reasonable, considering its functionality compared to other tools in the market.
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText UFT One provides comprehensive cross-technology testing automation with strong compatibility, integration, and innovative AI testing capabilities.
ReadyAPI simplifies API testing with CI/CD integration, scripting, tool compatibility, drag-and-drop, and robust reporting features.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
It also aids in faster feedback to developers, allowing them to implement developments in a sprint without the need for extensive testing afterwards, thus improving our time to market metrics.
ReadyAPI is valuable for web service automation and allowing us to generate test cases and automate processes.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
ReadyAPI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI is 1.2%, down from 1.7% 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.
SandeepSingh9 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
15%
Insurance Company
9%
Government
6%
 

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...
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.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
What do you like most about ReadyAPI?
The performance testing capabilities are very good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in considering which technologies to adopt.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?
In native teams and cloud environments, there is room for improvement. I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor. These are more so points from my wishlis...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
Ready API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.