We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and ReadyAPI Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The solution is very scalable."
"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."
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"Integrates well with other products."
"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."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"The utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"The solution has some good scanning features."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."
"The pricing could be improved."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"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."
"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."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"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."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"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."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". 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 ". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, ReadyAPI, Broadcom Service Virtualization, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
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.