We performed a comparison between Postman and ReadyAPI based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Postman only has a couple of solutions to automate API tests, whereas ReadyAPI can do both API testing and load testing. ReadyAPI users also report a positive ROI, while Postman users do not. For these reasons, ReadyAPI wins this comparison.
"With Postman you can do automation. Automation has increased efficiency by more than 30% or 40%. Because the speed has increased, it's also possible for us to do in-sprint automation testing."
"Postman helps to write pre-request scripts and make a collection out of each request. You don’t have to spend time writing or copying the requests. The solution lets you integrate multiple environments and their features. Either the tool’s pro or premium version lets you do the merge and pull request for the Git directly."
"Postman helps us to automate the API testing in the team."
"Postman uses the DRY framework of JavaScript and that framework is easy and a good way to put assertions on responses."
"The variables part is good. We can easily define the variables and we don't have to manually do a change every time, it gets automatically updated."
"In Postman, we have an option to directly import a call, make it a Postman collection, and execute it in a batch. This feature is very useful. It saves a lot of time. The manual effort is also reduced when we can just pick it in a Postman collection and then run and execute it to get the results."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Postman is the large libraries."
"We used to write our own solutions, from small scripts to task web services, so this saves us thousands of hours."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"ReadyAPI has the power to enrich all the technical work. You can achieve any complex task using ReadyAPI. I can also do UI automation with ReadyAPI. In a few test cases, we want to check the API and the equivalent UI. I download a job and write a piece of Groovy or Java code. It's almost the same in ReadyAPI. I can do that in a single test case. ReadyAPI is a powerful tool because you can do anything you want, but only you need to download the right set of jobs and produce the right set of code."
"Postman needs more advanced data-driven testing."
"Should have a more improved easy-to-use interface."
"The reporting could be better. It should give you a detailed PDF report after you run a test."
"The request encryption could be one thing on which they can work a little bit. If we don't want to expose our production data but we still want to test our APIs on the production data, there should be a way to do that. It is not only with Postman. I think no tool in the market is doing that right now."
"It should be able to check the records and compare them to the regression testing more on the automation side."
"Postman is a bit more of a complex tool, making it an area where improvements can be made."
"I rate the support for Postman a four out of five."
"UI testing needs to be added to the solution."
"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."
"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."
"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."
"SoapUI Pro is a little heavy due to the number of features. Previously it was not that heavy. Now the tool is too heavy, they should work on fixing this issue because until your system has lots of resources, you won't be able to use it seamlessly. The performance of the application itself could improve."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
"There are no bugs or glitches, but a few features available only in the Pro version could be made available in the open-source version. Some of the features do not necessarily need to be only available to Pro users. The data generator would be really useful for the open-source version users."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
Postman is ranked 1st in API Testing Tools with 52 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 8th in API Testing Tools with 31 reviews. Postman is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Postman writes "Reliable and easy to expand with a helpful API network". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI Test writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". Postman is most compared with Apache JMeter, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Apigee and Parasoft SOAtest, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with ReadyAPI, Broadcom Service Virtualization, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One and Apigee. See our Postman vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.
