We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and ReadyAPI Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, SeleniumHQ, Micro Focus and others in Functional Testing Tools."Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"SoapUI is uncomplicated and user-friendly."
"We used to write our own solutions, from small scripts to task web services, so this saves us thousands of hours."
"ReadyAPI has the power to enrich all the technical work. You can achieve any complex task using ReadyAPI. I can also do UI automation with ReadyAPI. In a few test cases, we want to check the API and the equivalent UI. I download a job and write a piece of Groovy or Java code. It's almost the same in ReadyAPI. I can do that in a single test case. ReadyAPI is a powerful tool because you can do anything you want, but only you need to download the right set of jobs and produce the right set of code."
"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 solution has some good scanning features."
"The solution scales well."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"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."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"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."
"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."
"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."
"I find that I'm fighting with the opportunities to order requests."
"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"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."
"SoapUI Pro is a little heavy due to the number of features. Previously it was not that heavy. Now the tool is too heavy, they should work on fixing this issue because until your system has lots of resources, you won't be able to use it seamlessly. The performance of the application itself could improve."
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools with 1 review while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 11 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 8.0, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI Test writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and Ranorex Studio, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with ReadyAPI, Postman, Apache JMeter, Parasoft SOAtest and Tricentis Tosca.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.
