We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI and ReadyAPI Test 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."The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the ready-to-use assertions and filters which can perform the validation. If we want to filter out any value, the filters are available. Apart from that database integration, if you want to go ahead and perform validation in the database layer it is possible with the ready-to-use feature available. The execution and reporting are rich features."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"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 utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"SoapUI Pro is a good tool when it comes to API design and orchestration. Additionally, it is beneficial for functional and for performance testing."
"SoapUI is uncomplicated and user-friendly."
"In terms of features, I have already raised different change requests on the ReadyAPI side. One of the largest functions I've requested is the validation of the payload for the REST APIs."
"Performance and memory management both need to be improved because other solutions use less memory for the same amount of data."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"What needs improvement in ReadyAPI is its load testing feature because there was a hiccup when my team performed some load testing on the tool. My team had meetings with the ReadyAPI team and tried to get that issue fixed, but it still hasn't improved. This is a shortcoming of the tool, especially when you compare it with HP LoadRunner."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"The UI should be improved."
"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."
"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."
"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."
"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."
"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."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 33 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.6, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". 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 ". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete and Parasoft SOAtest, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, Broadcom Service Virtualization, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One and Apigee. See our ReadyAPI vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing 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.