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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Parasoft SOAtest vs SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.2
OpenText Functional Testing automates tasks, reducing testing time and costs, yielding significant long-term ROI and system compatibility.
Sentiment score
6.3
Parasoft SOAtest streamlines web services and API test automation, offering high ROI and efficiency despite missing testing metrics.
Sentiment score
7.2
SonarQube Server boosts productivity, stability, and security through effective code analysis and vulnerability assessment, enhancing development processes.
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.
We found Parasoft SOAtest to be quick in building up test patterns, allowing us to create complex tests efficiently.
I have seen a return on the investment from SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) because the value it adds relates to static code analysis and vulnerability assessments needed for our FDA approval process.
We see productivity increasing based on the fact that the code review is mostly automated, allowing the developer to fix the code themselves before assigning it to someone else to review, thus receiving that ROI.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.1
OpenText Functional Testing support is mixed, with responsive service but potential delays and escalations for technical issues.
Sentiment score
7.8
Parasoft SOAtest is praised for responsive, knowledgeable customer service, though minor delays occur in complex, regional communication issues.
Sentiment score
6.2
SonarQube Server's support is valued for community resources and documentation, though free version technical support is limited.
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.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
They showed us where we can actually get those granular level reporting extracted for Excel, which was a quick guide.
I would rate the technical support for SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as a 10 because we have not faced any specific issues that required us to contact tech support, which is a very rare case.
The community support is quite effective.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
OpenText Functional Testing scales well with planning, though browser support and licensing issues require attention for seamless integration.
Sentiment score
6.9
Parasoft SOAtest scales well but requires improvements for memory and performance in large or cloud-based test scenarios.
Sentiment score
7.1
SonarQube Server efficiently scales for various user volumes and project sizes, though infrastructure demands may rise in physical setups.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
I find SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) very scalable because we're able to create a new repository and integrate all the tools on that project and it just works.
I would rate the scalability of SonarQube Server as a 10 because we can configure the server to scan multiple projects based on the number of lines.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.6
OpenText Functional Testing is generally reliable, but occasional stability issues arise, influenced by machine specs and implementation methods.
Sentiment score
7.2
Parasoft SOAtest is generally stable, though Eclipse-based memory demands may affect less powerful systems; support is efficient.
Sentiment score
7.7
SonarQube Server is highly reliable, stable with minor issues often related to plugins or environments, and rarely crashes.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
I think SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) is stable, and we did not face any problems unless there was a power outage or if the LAN cable was plugged out.
 

Room For Improvement

OpenText Functional Testing needs enhancements in object identification, performance, cost, scripting support, mobile features, and open-source tool integration.
Parasoft SOAtest needs UI improvements, better tool integration, more documentation, and offers limited WebUI testing with high costs.
SonarQube Server needs better issue detection, usability, language support, integration, customizable features, and AI-driven dynamic testing enhancements.
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.
It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions.
In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices.
Currently, it should also be able to analyze the code and generate and fix the code for specific developers or features that the developers are tracking.
If I fix some vulnerabilities today, they reappear in the next scan, and there will be completely different issues that need to be fixed.
 

Setup Cost

OpenText Functional Testing is costly but cost-effective due to robust capabilities and potential reductions in manual testing efforts.
Parasoft SOAtest offers powerful features and long-term benefits despite a complex, costly pricing model requiring careful planning and support.
SonarQube Server provides cost-effective solutions for code quality, with competitive pricing and enhanced features for various project sizes.
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.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro.
I would rate the pricing for SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) as an 8, where 1 is very cheap and 10 is very expensive, because Coverity is very expensive, and while SonarQube is not cheap, it is still less expensive than Coverity.
They always offer around a two-year contract, but we always take a one-year contract because it's expensive.
The freemium version of SonarQube Server offers excellent value, especially compared to the high costs of Snyk.
 

Valuable Features

OpenText Functional Testing provides extensive platform compatibility, strong object recognition, and robust automation frameworks enhancing diverse testing environments.
Parasoft SOAtest enhances functional testing with extensive protocol support, automation, and versatile scripting for efficient webservice and API testing.
SonarQube Server enhances code quality with language support, CI/CD integration, insightful dashboards, and an intuitive interface.
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 best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
Parasoft SOAtest is very good at ensuring tests don't pass or fail until they genuinely pass or fail.
Parasoft SOAtest improves the quality of the application, increases security and security compliance, and it is a cost-effective tool.
We use SonarQube Server's centralized management and visualization of code quality metrics on the dashboard because that's the executive dashboard that we send to the executives to show where we are in terms of quality, security, and where the company can improve.
Some of the static code analysis capabilities are the most beneficial.
The most valuable features of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) for us include having control of the rules, enabling and disabling them.
 

Mindshare comparison

Functional Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools
Application Security 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…
Nghiêm Phương - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality and security improvements drive user satisfaction
We have many customers, but with Parasoft SOAtest, we just focus on .NET, Java, and PHP protocols and message formats. For deployment, it runs on-premise with Parasoft SOAtest. The transition from manual testing can be challenging, and it's the first time they're using automation testing with Parasoft SOAtest. For the tool itself, Parasoft SOAtest, I would rate it as great with an overall rating of 10 out of 10.
Sthembiso Zondi - PeerSpot reviewer
Consistent improvements in code quality and security with effective integration and reliable technical support
The features of SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) that I find most useful are the suggestions received from reviewing the code. When they review the code, they provide suggestions on how to fix it, and we find those very useful from a development perspective. We use SonarQube Server's (formerly SonarQube) centralized management and visualization of code quality metrics on the dashboard because that's the executive dashboard that we send to the executives to show where we are in terms of quality, security, and where the company can improve. We use that for organizational improvement purposes. The ability to tailor metrics tracking in SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) has been beneficial to my team. There are team-specific dashboards which are related to specific repositories they utilize, and we have that aggregative dashboard that shows the whole organization's performance. We can drill down per specific repository, which makes it easier for the team to improve specific things.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
10%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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...
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?
Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the ...
What do you like most about Parasoft SOAtest?
Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Parasoft SOAtest?
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro. The new ...
What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?
In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improv...
Is SonarQube the best tool for static analysis?
I am not very familiar with SonarQube and their solutions, so I can not answer. But if you are asking me about which ...
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. Son...
How would you decide between Coverity and Sonarqube?
We researched Coverity, but in the end, we chose SonarQube. SonarQube is a tool for reviewing code quality and securi...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
SOAtest
Sonar
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: August 2025.
865,140 professionals have used our research since 2012.