Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Functional Testing vs SoapUI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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 API Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
96
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
SoapUI
Ranking in API Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 11.4%, up from 9.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SoapUI is 0.3%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
Mahendra Andhale - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for API testing and provides Groovy plugin
We use the solution mainly for API testing The solution's most valuable features are the designing of API, Property Transfer feature, and Groovy plugin. The solution should include some plug-ins to share the generated reports over email. Sometimes, Groovy can be a tricky language, and we need to…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"UFT has improved our ability to regression test."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The solution's most valuable features are the designing of API, Property Transfer feature, and Groovy plugin."
"We need to test the APIs as we build them. I use the product for API testing. You can do AWS security in SoapUI. With SoapUI, we can even perform mutual SSL authentication by incorporating certificates into the SoapUI browser. This allows us to send transactions to the backend downstream."
"SoapUI is a pretty simple tool."
 

Cons

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"The user interface could be improved"
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"The product needs to be available as an extension for the Chrome browser."
"There are more advanced API testing tools than SoapUI, and SoapUI could be made better."
"The solution should include some plug-ins to share the generated reports over email."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The price is reasonable."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"SoapUI is a cheap tool that does not have an expensive license."
"SoapUI is an open-source solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...
What do you like most about SoapUI?
We need to test the APIs as we build them. I use the product for API testing. You can do AWS security in SoapUI. With SoapUI, we can even perform mutual SSL authentication by incorporating certific...
What needs improvement with SoapUI?
The solution should include some plug-ins to share the generated reports over email. Sometimes, Groovy can be a tricky language, and we need to focus more on that.
What is your primary use case for SoapUI?
We use the solution mainly for API testing.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. SoapUI and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.