OpenText Functional Testing and ReadyAPI Test are two competing products in the functional testing category. ReadyAPI appears to have an advantage in API testing due to its scripting flexibility and ease of use, while OpenText excels in wider application coverage, including legacy systems.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing is capable of handling extensive testing environments and supports features such as object recognition, .xlsx format, and is compatible with multiple browsers like Chrome and Firefox. It seamlessly integrates with systems like SAP, Oracle, and Windows and supports integration via ALM. ReadyAPI Test is specialized for API testing, offering mock services, Groovy scripting, and straightforward functional testing for SOAP and REST services. It allows rapid test setup, test execution, and has robust database and API mocking capabilities.
Room for Improvement: OpenText users seek better support for .NET, improved compatibility, and lower system resource usage. There's also a need for enhanced integration and modern technology support. ReadyAPI users highlight the need for more flexible licensing, better integration with development tools, and improvements in documentation and support responsiveness.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is mostly deployed on-premises and provides customer support, although users report varying experiences and responsiveness issues. ReadyAPI Test is also largely deployed on-premises, but user feedback on support services is generally positive, despite some noted delays in resolving issues.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is considered costly, though it is valued for its comprehensive coverage. Licensing complexity can be a negative. ReadyAPI Test is also seen as expensive, but its capabilities are perceived as worth the price, especially for API testing. Both products are noted for their potential to deliver strong ROI through efficient testing processes and reduced manual effort.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
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.
I would rate the support for this product a seven on a scale of one to ten.
Running them in parallel allows you to consume multiple runtime licenses and just execute the tests that don't have conflicting priorities and get through a lot of volume much quicker.
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.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
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.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
The ease of being able to create scripts using the AI tools are the differentiating factors.
The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 8.4% |
| ReadyAPI Test | 1.1% |
| Other | 90.5% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 8 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 3 |
| Large Enterprise | 19 |
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.
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.
