OpenText Functional Testing and Parasoft SOAtest are key players in the software testing tools category. OpenText is more favorable for broader applications, whereas Parasoft significantly delivers on API and service testing strengths.
Features:OpenText Functional Testing is versatile, supporting GUI and API testing with comprehensive data-driven testing options. It integrates with various enterprise applications and supports multiple browsers. Parasoft SOAtest stands out for service virtualization, extensive protocol support, and ease of creating customizable scenarios, particularly strong in automated web services and continuous testing.
Room for Improvement:OpenText users encounter performance and resource issues, particularly with virtual machines, and desire improved debugging and broader programming language support. Parasoft users seek better report customization, an enhanced user interface, and improved integration with other test management tools. There are also challenges with large workspace files and desired improvements in cryptography capabilities.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:OpenText offers flexibility with on-premises and private cloud deployment but varies in customer service satisfaction, with some users citing delays and unsatisfactory resolutions. Parasoft is deployed on-premises and in hybrid clouds, with reports of ease of use and strong customer service, although the initial setup can be cumbersome. Both products benefit from thorough guidance for optimal use.
Pricing and ROI:OpenText is viewed as expensive with a complex licensing model yet seen as a valuable investment due to its features and scalability. It offers significant ROI in reduced testing time and increased automation. Parasoft, while also considered pricey, especially for large deployments, delivers strong API testing support, justifying its cost. Users experience positive ROI due to testing efficiencies and reduced manual interventions.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
We found Parasoft SOAtest to be quick in building up test patterns, allowing us to create complex tests efficiently.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
Parasoft SOAtest is very good at ensuring tests don't pass or fail until they genuinely pass or fail.
OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.
OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.
What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.
Parasoft SOAtest delivers fully integrated API and web service testing capabilities that automate end-to-end functional API testing. Streamline automated testing with advanced codeless test creation for applications with multiple interfaces (REST & SOAP APIs, microservices, databases, and more).
SOAtest reduces the risk of security breaches and performance outages by transforming functional testing artifacts into security and load equivalents. Such reuse, along with continuous monitoring of APIs for change, allows faster and more efficient testing.
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.
