OpenText UFT Developer vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"The solution is very scalable."

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."

"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."

"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."

"We have seen a return on investment."

"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."

"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."

"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."

"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."

"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"The price of the solution could improve."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."

"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."

"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."

"Parasoft SOAtest has an internal refresh function where you can refresh the software to show the changes you’ve made in your projects. Unfortunately this function does not work properly, because it often does not show the changes after you’ve hit te refresh button a few times."

"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."

"Reporting facilities can be better."

"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."

"The summary reports could be improved."

"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"They do have a confusing licensing structure."

"From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."

"The cost of Parasoft seems to have gotten higher with a projection that wasn't really stipulated for our company. They've done a tremendous job at negotiating those deals."

"It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you."

"The price is around $5,000 USD."

"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."

"The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."

"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."