OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

OpenText and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #18 with an average rating of 7.5, while SmartBear is ranked #20. OpenText holds a 1.9% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 2.2% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 19 OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web reviews

2,510 Views
1,933 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

ReadyAPI Test

Read 31 ReadyAPI Test reviews

3,416 Views
2,015 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

ReadyAPI Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

ReadyAPI Test and OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web compete in the domain of software testing solutions. OpenText is noted for its advanced feature set, while ReadyAPI Test offers a competitive edge in pricing and support.

Features: ReadyAPI Test offers seamless integration capabilities, robust testing frameworks, and ease of project and test suite setup. OpenText facilitates advanced mobile testing tools, automation features, and multi-device testing capabilities.

Room for Improvement: ReadyAPI Test could enhance its mobile testing flexibility and expand automation functionalities. OpenText might benefit from simplifying its setup process, improving deployment flexibility, and refining user interface intuitiveness.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ReadyAPI Test provides straightforward deployment with strong support channels, making integration within existing systems seamless. OpenText offers similar customer service quality but involves a more complex setup process due to its extensive functionality.

Pricing and ROI: ReadyAPI Test is known for its affordable pricing, making it suitable for smaller budgets while ensuring good ROI. OpenText, although having higher initial setup costs, promises substantial ROI due to its broader testing functionalities for larger operations.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. ReadyAPI Test Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. ReadyAPI Test

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 900,747 peers since 2012

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

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (6th)

ReadyAPI Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (10th), API Testing Tools (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 1.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 2.2%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web	1.9%
ReadyAPI Test	2.2%
Other	95.9%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer2356440

Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Experienced ease in automation with strong support while seeking improvements in low-code options

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers flexibility of deployment, from on-premises to UFT One which is on the cloud. They provide capability for immediate deployment, and assets can be migrated easily. They include enablers specifically for quick migration of test assets. While I have not personally been involved in these migrations, I have observed some clients using it directly while others make a complete shift from OpenText to Tricentis platforms. There have not been many clients moving from OpenText platforms from on-premises to cloud because most shifts have been toward different product categories such as Tricentis altogether.

Read full review

Luis Sanchez

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Using the existing enterprise tools, like UFT, or even if you want to go open source, you can use them and it's a real user-functional performance, we are able to achieve that."

"This is a solution that's easy to use and it also gives us the possibility to use real devices connected either on the Mobile Center server or on our own computers and it works with both iOS and Android devices."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"We escalate tickets to HPE, and we don't have problems."

"The solution provides a controlled device farm with the right devices (selected based on analytics), that are readily available (can be reserved), have the right app and can be used for manual or automated tests."

"They've all been really satisfied with the scalability of the HPE products."

"The product is easy to use."

"In general, in my opinion, Mobile Center is a good product that allows us to do everything we need to automate application testing for mobile."

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web pros

"We can test as many APIs as we like, it's very reliable and very easy to understand, anyone can learn it very quickly."

"This product is quite useful for us."

"The utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."

"The Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."

"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."

"The solution has some good scanning features."

"The ability to analyse and simulate web services are clearly the main value."

"One of the main things that's great is the excellent integration into the DevOps tool-chain and the reuse of code between SoapUI and LoadUI."

Cons

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

"I don't think the product as it is right now is going to sell itself, but it's really what are the next steps."

"Deployment was an issue. Each time we set it up and deployed, it failed and we had to relaunch it again."

"OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web could benefit from implementing a low-code, no-code solution that aids in quick automation code preparation."

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"I think the biggest issues that I've seen, and this is a personal view of mine, is that most of the HPE products have a common look and feel to them."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web cons

"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."

"The UI could be a bit more flexible."

"The UI should be improved a little."

"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."

"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."

"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."

"I am not really a fan of the Ready Pro version even though I am sure it offers a lot."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

"The product could be more affordable."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"It is free of charge."

"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."

"The cost is not that bad."

"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."

"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."

"SoapUI Pro is open source but it has a subscription-based model which involves some more features. At the moment we are using the free version. The Pro version requires a license, and it is an annual license to use it."

"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."

"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."

More ReadyAPI Test pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

13%

Construction Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Non Profit

Financial Services Firm

17%

Construction Company

14%

Marketing Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	13

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	20

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

I deal with OpenText Analysis Database and Core Performance Engineering, which are categories of software rather than individual pieces. We focus on the ADM area, which includes ALM, UFT One, UFT D...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

I do have experience with OpenText products and OpenText ALM. I have been using ALM Quality Center, which has had a few names for it over time, but it is the old Quality Center that was then rename...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 8% of the time

Perfecto vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 5% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 5% of the time

Testim vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Competitors

Postman Enterprise vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 10% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 8% of the time

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 5% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 4% of the time

ReadyAPI vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 4% of the time

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

June 2026

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web report

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web product report

Buyer's Guide

ReadyAPI Test

June 2026

Download ReadyAPI Test product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

SoapUI NG Pro

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers integration with HPE and non-HPE tools, real device testing, and device management. It supports real-time analytics and multi-platform testing, ensuring traceability and flexibility with decentralized devices.

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is designed to enhance testing efficiency for mobile and desktop applications by allowing ease of integration with different testing environments. It features real-time analytics, supports automated device management, and provides the flexibility of decentralized testing on real devices. With a focus on robust traceability, it stands out as a comprehensive choice for optimizing software development life cycles, especially notable for its ability to support multiple devices simultaneously and strategic scaling through network virtualization and AWS device farm.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing Lab?

Ease of Use: Intuitive interface facilitating user engagement.
Integration: Compatible with HPE and non-HPE tools for improved workflow.
Real Device Testing: Ensures testing on actual devices for accurate results.
Automation: Advanced capabilities streamline repetitive testing.
Device Management: Flexible management of decentralized devices.
Multi-Platform Support: Simultaneous testing across various platforms.
Traceability: Strong application delivery traceability for robust tracking.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Scalability: Ability to handle multiple devices and scale as needed.
Flexibility: Deployment options include both on-premises and cloud-based solutions.
Real-Time Analytics: Provides actionable insights for data-driven decisions.
Enhanced Performance: Optimizes the software development lifecycle.
Comprehensive Testing: Facilitates thorough functional and performance testing.

Financial services companies utilize OpenText Functional Testing Lab for optimizing mobile solutions and applications, ensuring a streamlined integration into their Application Lifecycle Management and Unified Functional Testing processes. It aids in functional and performance testing, adapting to both on-premises and cloud deployments to suit industry-specific demands.

OpenText

ReadyAPI Test is a versatile solution for API testing, known for its flexibility, automation, and ease of setup. It efficiently handles SOAP, REST, and JDBC testing, with a user-friendly interface that supports both technical and non-technical teams.

ReadyAPI Test offers robust capabilities in API testing, including functional, load, and security testing. Features such as Groovy scripting, mock services, and data-driven testing enhance workflow efficiency. It integrates well with project environments, supporting script writing and database validation. Teams benefit from easy navigation and comprehensive testing capabilities, making it suitable for IT clients and software test engineers.

What are the main features of ReadyAPI Test?

Groovy Scripting: Enables advanced testing scenarios and custom functions.
Mock Services: Allows simulation of service responses for more dynamic testing.
Data-Driven Testing: Supports testing with diverse data sets for extensive validation.
Integration Capabilities: Enhances project workflows with seamless environment connections.
Load and Security Testing: Provides efficient performance analysis and security checks.
User-Friendly Interface: Simplifies navigation for both technical and non-technical users.

What benefits and ROI can users expect?

Time Efficiency: Streamlined testing processes reduce time spent on manual tasks.
Flexibility: Adapts to varied testing needs and environments easily.
Comprehensive Testing: Supports a full range of API testing types for different protocols.
Cost-Effectiveness: Reduces long-term costs through automation and efficient operations.
Improved Collaboration: Facilitates better team collaboration with integrated tools.

ReadyAPI Test is deployed across industries for automated and manual API testing. It suits industries like IT services, where it assists software test engineers in end-to-end testing scenarios, including email systems and mainframe integration. Organizations utilize it for extensive testing requirements, offering a range of validation methods across project lifecycles.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. ReadyAPI Test

June 2026

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. ReadyAPI Test

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. ReadyAPI Test and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. ReadyAPI Test report.

See our list of best Functional 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.