OpenText Functional Testing and ReadyAPI compete in the software testing category. ReadyAPI appears to have the upper hand for API testing due to its comprehensive suite, while OpenText stands strong in GUI testing due to its broad platform compatibility.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing provides compatibility with numerous platforms and supports GUI testing with object recognition capabilities, Business Process Testing, and a wide range of browser and desktop application support. ReadyAPI focuses on API testing, offering functional, load, and security testing, integration with third-party tools, and an engaging user experience.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancement in speed, memory consumption, and browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, as well as extended API testing capabilities. ReadyAPI may improve with better CI pipeline integration, wider protocol support than just SOAP and REST, and optimized performance for high-demand testing scenarios.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both OpenText and ReadyAPI offer on-premises deployment, with OpenText also offering limited private cloud deployment and ReadyAPI on public cloud platforms. Customer service experiences vary, with OpenText facing challenges with complex queries and delays, while ReadyAPI, despite being praised for vendor partnerships, also experiences slow response times.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is a premium solution with higher licensing costs likened to its extensive features, while ReadyAPI is moderately priced for comprehensive API testing. Both solutions enhance testing efficiencies and offer ROI by reducing manual testing efforts, being more suitable for different testing needs.
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.
After creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody.
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.
I rate ReadyAPI between five to six for scalability due to complexities associated with scripting.
ReadyAPI's performance testing capabilities can impact API scalability assessments.
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.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
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.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
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.
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.
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.
I consider ReadyAPI a cost-effective solution because it covers three verticals without needing to purchase separate tools for security, performance, or functional testing.
ReadyAPI is valuable for web service automation and allowing us to generate test cases and automate processes.
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.
