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

OpenText UFT One vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

OpenText and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.2, while SmartBear is ranked #23 with an average rating of 7.3. OpenText holds a 9.6% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.
OpenText UFT One
Read 94 OpenText UFT One reviews
  • 8,035 Views
  • 5,043 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
ReadyAPI Test
Read 31 ReadyAPI Test reviews
  • 546 Views
  • 476 Comparison Views
93% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

OpenText UFT One and ReadyAPI Test are two competing products in the automated testing software market. User reviews indicate that while OpenText UFT One has strong points, ReadyAPI Test has advantages in several critical areas making it a preferred choice for some users despite potentially higher costs.

Features: OpenText UFT One users highlight its robust integration capabilities, strong support for various testing environments, and good automation tools. ReadyAPI Test is praised for its extensive support for API testing, user-friendly scriptless testing features, and comprehensive data-driven testing capabilities.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One users suggest improvements in performance, better support for modern applications, and more robust debugging tools. ReadyAPI Test users desire better reporting features, enhanced performance under heavy loads, and more intuitive user interface.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One generally receives positive feedback on its deployment process but mixed reviews on customer support responsiveness. ReadyAPI Test is noted for its straightforward deployment and proactive support services, providing easier deployment and better customer support as notable advantages.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is perceived as expensive by some users but delivers good ROI due to its extensive capabilities. ReadyAPI Test might have higher initial costs, but users feel the advanced API testing features justify the expense and provide an excellent ROI. Despite higher costs, ReadyAPI Test's ROI is perceived as superior due to its specialized features.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI Test Report (Updated: November 2024).
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI Test
November 2024
Download the complete report
Helped 824,053 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.5
Organizations using OpenText UFT One experience up to 300% ROI through enhanced efficiency and 60% test automation.
Sentiment score
7.9
ReadyAPI Test greatly boosts developer and QA productivity, automating 10,000 tests hourly, providing substantial ROI despite high costs.
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.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the ReadyAPI Test report
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.3
OpenText UFT One's customer service is praised for expertise but faces challenges with response speed and technician knowledge variability.
Sentiment score
7.6
ReadyAPI Test is user-friendly with responsive SmartBear support, though some users suggest improvement; online communities offer additional help.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the ReadyAPI Test report
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText UFT One is highly scalable, adaptable for varying team sizes, with some execution speed challenges in large test suites.
Sentiment score
7.7
ReadyAPI Test is scalable, suitable for various teams, customizable with scripting, and generally satisfies users despite some integration issues.
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 ReadyAPI Test report
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Opinions on OpenText UFT One's stability vary, with some users experiencing stability issues influenced by system specifications and configurations.
Sentiment score
7.1
ReadyAPI Test is stable and reliable with minor startup delays, improved from earlier versions, and highly praised for consistency.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText UFT One needs improvements in compatibility, performance, technology support, integration, cost, and usability for enhanced user experience.
ReadyAPI Test needs better integration, support, documentation, performance, customization, and training, along with extended trials and improved stability.
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 ReadyAPI Test report
 

Setup Cost

OpenText UFT One is costly but valued for reducing manual testing and enhancing automation efficiency, sometimes offering discounts.
ReadyAPI Test's high pricing and licensing issues lead users to suggest bundling and discounts for better affordability and clarity.
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.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the ReadyAPI Test report
 

Valuable Features

OpenText UFT One is versatile, supporting multiple platforms with AI capabilities and robust integration for comprehensive test automation.
ReadyAPI Test is user-friendly, integrates well, supports database validations, and enables easy API, security, and UI testing with groovy scripting.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers.
For more quotes and insights, download the OpenText UFT One report
No quotes available
For more quotes and insights, download the ReadyAPI Test report
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in API Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
94
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
ReadyAPI Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
23rd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in API Testing Tools
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 9.6%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 0.5%, down from 1.1% 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
Faiz Ahmed - PeerSpot reviewer
You can achieve any complex task with this tool
There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases. For example, it would be nice to have a Selenium plugin available from the menu, where I can select "open browser" and provide the URL. That URL would be immediately open in the browser. This is like a keyword, and then the Selenium plugin should be there.
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
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
13%
Insurance Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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 user interface could be improved.
See all answers
What do you like most about SoapUI Pro?
The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SoapUI Pro?
ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten.
See all answers
What needs improvement with SoapUI Pro?
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 b...
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 ReadyAPI Test Logo
Postman vs ReadyAPI Test
Compared 80% of the time
Broadcom Service Virtualization vs ReadyAPI Test Logo
Broadcom Service Virtualization vs ReadyAPI Test
Compared 12% of the time
ReadyAPI vs ReadyAPI Test Logo
ReadyAPI vs ReadyAPI Test
Compared 4% of the time
IBM Rational Test Workbench vs ReadyAPI Test Logo
IBM Rational Test Workbench vs ReadyAPI Test
Compared 2% of the time
Apigee vs ReadyAPI Test Logo
Apigee vs ReadyAPI Test
Compared 2% of the time
More ReadyAPI Test Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
November 2024
OpenText UFT One reportDownload OpenText UFT One product report
Buyer's Guide
ReadyAPI Test
December 2024
ReadyAPI Test reportDownload ReadyAPI Test product report
 

Also Known As

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

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
For REST, SOAP and other popular API and IoT protocols, SoapUI NG Pro provides the industry's most comprehensive and easy-to-learn functional testing capabilities. Based on open core technology proven by millions of community members, SoapUI NG Pro helps you ensure that your APIs perform as intended, meet your business requirements, timeframes, and team skill sets right from day one.
 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI Test
November 2024
Free Report: OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI Test
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. ReadyAPI Test and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
DOWNLOAD NOW
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.