Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
5.9
OpenText Functional Testing reduces test automation time and costs, increasing ROI by 70-80% compared to manual testing.
Sentiment score
6.3
Parasoft SOAtest streamlines web services and API test automation, offering high ROI and efficiency despite missing testing metrics.
We found Parasoft SOAtest to be quick in building up test patterns, allowing us to create complex tests efficiently.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.6
OpenText Functional Testing support is generally effective but inconsistent, with improvements noted and suggestions for enhancing responsiveness.
Sentiment score
7.8
Parasoft SOAtest is praised for responsive, knowledgeable customer service, though minor delays occur in complex, regional communication issues.
Initially, it was quite poor, but it seems they are making efforts to improve.
For technical support, I would give them an eight because whenever we have a concern, they immediately reach out to us.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing offers scalability, supports diverse ecosystems, and enhances integration, though resource consumption is a noted limitation.
Sentiment score
6.9
Parasoft SOAtest scales well but requires improvements for memory and performance in large or cloud-based test scenarios.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
Experiences with OpenText Testing vary; some face stability issues, but recent improvements enhance reliability compared to competitors.
Sentiment score
7.2
Parasoft SOAtest is generally stable, though Eclipse-based memory demands may affect less powerful systems; support is efficient.
We regularly update the product, and overall, it is stable.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing requires enhanced integration, stability, performance, and accessibility for broader technology, mobile support, and modernized interfaces.
Parasoft SOAtest needs UI improvements, better tool integration, more documentation, and offers limited WebUI testing with high costs.
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary.
It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions.
In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices.
 

Setup Cost

Enterprise users find OpenText Functional Testing costly, preferring open-source alternatives, with high setup and licensing fees.
Parasoft SOAtest offers powerful features and long-term benefits despite a complex, costly pricing model requiring careful planning and support.
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing offers flexibility, integration, and developer-friendly features, enhancing productivity and efficiency with strong stability and automation.
Parasoft SOAtest enhances functional testing with extensive protocol support, automation, and versatile scripting for efficient webservice and API testing.
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio.
Parasoft SOAtest is very good at ensuring tests don't pass or fail until they genuinely pass or fail.
Parasoft SOAtest improves the quality of the application, increases security and security compliance, and it is a cost-effective tool.
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Parasoft SOAtest
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
16th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (19th), API Testing Tools (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.8%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.
Nghiêm Phương - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality and security improvements drive user satisfaction
We have many customers, but with Parasoft SOAtest, we just focus on .NET, Java, and PHP protocols and message formats. For deployment, it runs on-premise with Parasoft SOAtest. The transition from manual testing can be challenging, and it's the first time they're using automation testing with Parasoft SOAtest. For the tool itself, Parasoft SOAtest, I would rate it as great with an overall rating of 10 out of 10.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
10%
University
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?
There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.
What do you like most about Parasoft SOAtest?
Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Parasoft SOAtest?
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro. The new management does not want subscription tools around, aiming for scripted tests us...
What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?
In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
SOAtest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Parasoft SOAtest and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
864,574 professionals have used our research since 2012.