OpenText UFT One vs SoapUI comparison

OpenText and SmartBear are both solutions in the API Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.1, while SmartBear is ranked #12 with an average rating of 8.3. Additionally, 88% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT One

Read 95 OpenText UFT One reviews

4,597 Views
2,905 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

SoapUI

Read 3 SoapUI reviews

50 Views
16 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

SoapUI

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

OpenText UFT One and SoapUI are two leading tools in software testing. While OpenText UFT One is favored for its comprehensive testing functionalities, SoapUI's flexibility gives it a competitive edge.

Features: OpenText UFT One is known for its extensive support for various testing environments, detailed reporting tools, and advanced testing capabilities. SoapUI is valued for its ease of use, versatility, and support for a wide range of protocols.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One could improve its learning curve, reduce resource requirements, and streamline its complex features. SoapUI needs better performance speed, more detailed documentation, and enhancements to its user interface.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Deploying OpenText UFT One is complex and time-consuming, but its customer service is highly rated. SoapUI offers a smoother deployment process; however, customer support receives mixed reviews.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One has a higher initial setup cost but offers a favorable ROI due to its extensive capabilities. SoapUI attracts with a lower upfront cost, though ROI varies, depending on implementation scale.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT One vs. SoapUI Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One vs. SoapUI

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,406 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:

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in API Testing Tools

6th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (2nd)

SoapUI

Ranking in API Testing Tools

12th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Featured Reviews

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

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

Mahendra Andhale

Test Architect at Happiest Minds Technologies

Used for API testing and provides Groovy plugin

We use the solution mainly for API testing The solution's most valuable features are the designing of API, Property Transfer feature, and Groovy plugin. The solution should include some plug-ins to share the generated reports over email. Sometimes, Groovy can be a tricky language, and we need to…

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 production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."

"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."

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

"It offers a wide range of testing."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"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."

More OpenText UFT One pros

"SoapUI is a pretty simple tool."

"We need to test the APIs as we build them. I use the product for API testing. You can do AWS security in SoapUI. With SoapUI, we can even perform mutual SSL authentication by incorporating certificates into the SoapUI browser. This allows us to send transactions to the backend downstream."

"The solution's most valuable features are the designing of API, Property Transfer feature, and Groovy plugin."

Cons

"We'd like it to have less scripting."

"They should include AI-based testing features."

"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."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

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

More OpenText UFT One cons

"The solution should include some plug-ins to share the generated reports over email."

"The product needs to be available as an extension for the Chrome browser."

"There are more advanced API testing tools than SoapUI, and SoapUI could be made better."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an expensive solution."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

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

"The tool's price is high."

"The price is reasonable."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"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."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

"SoapUI is an open-source solution."

"SoapUI is a cheap tool that does not have an expensive license."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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?

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 ...

See all answers

What do you like most about SoapUI?

We need to test the APIs as we build them. I use the product for API testing. You can do AWS security in SoapUI. With SoapUI, we can even perform mutual SSL authentication by incorporating certific...

See all answers

What needs improvement with SoapUI?

The solution should include some plug-ins to share the generated reports over email. Sometimes, Groovy can be a tricky language, and we need to focus more on that.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for SoapUI?

We use the solution mainly for API testing.

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 9% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Buyer's Guide

API Testing Tools

March 2025

Download SoapUI product report

Also Known As

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

No data available

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

OpenText

SoapUI is a leading tool for testing SOAP and REST web services, known for its robust functionality and user-friendly interface. It supports functional, automated, and load testing, and offers powerful scripting and automation. Organizations appreciate its efficiency, protocol flexibility, and integration capabilities.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

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

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One vs. SoapUI

March 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT One vs. SoapUI

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. SoapUI and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT One vs. SoapUI report.

See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all API 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.