We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and ReadyAPI Test 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."The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"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 most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"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."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"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 tool’s scalability is very good."
"The solution scales well."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"We used to write our own solutions, from small scripts to task web services, so this saves us thousands of hours."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"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."
"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."
"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."
"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."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI Test writes "You can achieve any complex task with this tool". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, Broadcom Service Virtualization, ReadyAPI, Tricentis Tosca and Apigee. See our OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best API 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.
