We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's simple to set up."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"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."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"[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 does not have proper scripting."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"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."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"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."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"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."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 21st in Test Automation Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Apache JMeter. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
