No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM DevOps Test UI vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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

IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
26th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ReadyAPI Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
21st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.7%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 2.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ReadyAPI Test2.3%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.7%
Other96.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.
Luis Sanchez - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Assurance Test Engineer at Dormakaba
Helps in data, regression, performance, security, and functional testing
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"It is 100% compatible with all sorts of database integrations and is compatible with all types of open source TFT-based applications, which makes it a great product to have."
"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester, which analyzes the changes in UI elements and allows me to automatically adapt and change my automation testing."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"The advantage is that the product is handy for testers, user friendly; ability to use load, security tests or create mocks."
"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."
"I've majorly worked on SoapUI Pro, LoadUI and Service Pro and found all of them equally useful and very easy to understand tools."
"This product is quite useful for us."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"We can test as many APIs as we like, it's very reliable and very easy to understand, anyone can learn it very quickly."
"SoapUI Pro is a good tool when it comes to API design and orchestration. Additionally, it is beneficial for functional and for performance testing."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
 

Cons

"The object repository used for identifying objects can be made better. It has been noticed that the RFT tool is unable to identify some objects, due to which we are unable to add them to the object repository."
"If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"I am never going to buy SoapUI, far too expensive."
"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."
"Because we are paying such a huge cost, we expect more hands-on support from their research and development team."
"Sometimes it would get stuck, so we had to close ReadyAPI and then start it again."
"I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"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."
"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."
"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"The cost is not that bad."
"It is free of charge."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
915,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise20
 

Also Known As

IBM Rational Functional Tester
SoapUI NG Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edumate
Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. ReadyAPI Test and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.