OpenText Functional Testing and ReadyAPI are two prominent solutions in the realm of functional and API testing. OpenText Functional Testing generally has an advantage in supporting complex testing environments with a robust automation framework, whereas ReadyAPI is typically favored for its simplicity and efficiency in API testing scenarios.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers extensive support for applications including legacy systems such as Oracle and SAP and provides robust third-party tool integration alongside a flexible automation framework. ReadyAPI shines in API testing, with excellent integration capabilities with CI/CD tools and the ability to conduct functional, load, and security testing on a single platform.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could benefit from addressing its high resource consumption and slow execution speeds. Enhancements in browser compatibility and the environment efficiency, particularly with .NET support, are also needed. ReadyAPI could improve in performance stability and integration with test management tools while offering more intuitive usability features for test management and execution.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing primarily supports on-premises deployments but offers limited cloud flexibility. Customer service experiences vary, with challenges in resolving complex issues promptly. ReadyAPI is more flexible, supporting both on-premises and cloud deployments, appealing to cloud-first enterprises. Users find customer service satisfactory but note a desire for quicker issue resolutions.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is known for high licensing costs that challenge scaling automation efforts, but it offers a solid ROI long-term due to its comprehensive features. ReadyAPI is considered cost-effective, offering pricing flexibility with licenses for specific functionalities, making it a favorable choice for organizations focusing on API testing.
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.
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.
SmartBear had an ALM tool that helped manage project documentation, including Jira-related specifications, test plans, and test cases.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
ReadyAPI's performance testing capabilities can impact API scalability assessments.
I rate ReadyAPI between five to six for scalability due to complexities associated with scripting.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
Once all configurations and preparations are done, it is very stable.
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.
One issue I found with ReadyAPI is related to event listeners compared to JMeter or SoapUI.
I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
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.
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs.
The pricing of ReadyAPI is reasonable, considering its functionality compared to other tools in the market.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
It also aids in faster feedback to developers, allowing them to implement developments in a sprint without the need for extensive testing afterwards, thus improving our time to market metrics.
ReadyAPI is a versatile tool for creating multiple testing frameworks and validating various parameters seamlessly.
ReadyAPI is valuable for web service automation and allowing us to generate test cases and automate processes.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 8.5% |
| ReadyAPI | 1.6% |
| Other | 89.9% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 12 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 5 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 5 |
| Large Enterprise | 28 |
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.
ReadyAPI is an all-in-one automated testing platform that allows teams to create, manage, and execute automated functional, security, and performance tests in one centralized interface.
ReadyAPI Features
Some of ReadyAPI’s key features include:
ReadyAPI Benefits
Some of the benefits of using ReadyAPI include:
Reviews from Real Users
Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by Dell EMC Unity users.
PeerSpot user Vallalarasu P., Test Architect at a tech services company, states, “ReadyAPI is one of the best tools for API testing because they have made a single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and also service actualization. We also have virtual work that can be an add-in within ReadyAPI. For integration for CACD, they have something called TestEngine, which can also be an add-on for ReadyAPI. We use Python request library and things like that but if you're a bigger organization with hundreds of APIs, then ReadyAPI is a one-stop solution for complete API testing. If you consider TestComplete and other products for an equivalent outcome, you might get something nearly comparable, butReadyAPI is the outstanding product.”
An IT Manager at an insurance company says the solution has “Fast automation, less coding, and is pretty lightweight. When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."
Balamurugan A., Manager at a financial services firm, comments, “We like the user interface. The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools.
They have interfaces with our performance tools, so we were able to leverage all of these integrations and plugins. It is very good from an integrative solution standpoint.”
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.
