OpenText UFT Developer vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

You must select at least 2 products to compare!
OpenText Logo
3,112 views|1,893 comparisons
77% willing to recommend
Parasoft Logo
799 views|542 comparisons
92% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT Developer vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report (Updated: May 2024).
771,946 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly.""The most valuable features are the object repository.""The most valuable feature is stability.""The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf.""One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library.""The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local.""The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application.""It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

More OpenText UFT Developer Pros →

"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic.""Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally.""We have seen a return on investment.""The solution is scalable.""Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports.""Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization.""The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest.""We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."

More Parasoft SOAtest Pros →

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability.""It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support.""Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.""UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive.""Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise.""Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful.""In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure.""In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

More OpenText UFT Developer Cons →

"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved.""Parasoft SOAtest has an internal refresh function where you can refresh the software to show the changes you’ve made in your projects. Unfortunately this function does not work properly, because it often does not show the changes after you’ve hit te refresh button a few times.""During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time.""The performance could be a bit better.""Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings.""The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually.""Reporting facilities can be better.""Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."

More Parasoft SOAtest Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
  • "The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
  • "The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
  • "When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
  • "It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
  • "The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
  • "Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
  • "The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
  • More OpenText UFT Developer Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."
  • "The cost of Parasoft seems to have gotten higher with a projection that wasn't really stipulated for our company. They've done a tremendous job at negotiating those deals."
  • "I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."
  • "It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you."
  • "We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."
  • "The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."
  • "They do have a confusing licensing structure."
  • "The price is around $5,000 USD."
  • More Parasoft SOAtest Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    771,946 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.
    Top Answer:The pricing is competitive. It is affordable and average.
    Top Answer:Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars.
    Top Answer:Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports.
    Top Answer:Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings. Going through that is a challenge. It only happens in the initial stage when we are setting up the tool, but it can be… more »
    Average Words per Review
    Average Words per Review
    Also Known As
    Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
    Learn More
    With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

    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.

    Sample Customers
    Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
    Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
    Top Industries
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Computer Software Company12%
    Financial Services Firm22%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Manufacturing Company8%
    Energy/Utilities Company6%
    Financial Services Firm43%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Financial Services Firm30%
    Manufacturing Company15%
    Computer Software Company13%
    Company Size
    Small Business5%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise71%
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise76%
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise69%
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    OpenText UFT Developer vs. Parasoft SOAtest
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Developer vs. Parasoft SOAtest and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
    771,946 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Automai AppLoader, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity and Polyspace Code Prover. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.

    See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.

    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.