ReadyAPI Reviews

I primarily use ReadyAPI to convert APIs into functional test cases and to manage customer information.

ReadyAPI's best features are user-friendliness, smooth integration with Postman, the speed of creating test cases, and integration with customer data.

An improvement for ReadyAPI would be automated import/export with third-party tools. It can also be hard for new testers to learn.

I've been using ReadyAPI for six months.

ReadyAPI is stable.

ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time.

The initial setup is very easy.

ReadyAPI requires a product license and a subscription, which is renewable every year or three years. Its pricing is very reasonable, unlike more expensive competitors like Tosca, XPlant, or Catalon.

I would advise anybody thinking of implementing ReadyAPI to install the trial version and go through the tutorial so that they can learn how the solution works. I would rate ReadyAPI as eight out of ten.

We were using ReadyAPI for performance testing and creating mocks but there were some issues in terms of scaling, so we are no longer using this solution.

The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly.

We stopped using this solution because of issues with scalability. Performance and memory management both need to be improved because other solutions use less memory for the same amount of data.

I think that there was an open-source version, with a lower cost, then this would be a recipe to get into bigger markets.

I used ReadyAPI for about one year.

I think that this is a stable product.

ReadyAPI is not as scalable as other solutions, such as Karate. More resources, especially in terms of memory, are required for the same amount of data.

The scale does not only refer to the number of users. It concerns the applications and how often they make calls to different servers or mocks. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

The implementation was done by my team.

It took about a week to deploy because it involved more than just an installation. There was connectivity to configure and it had to be integrated with existing testing frameworks.

We migrated back to Karate about six months ago. It is more scalable and has more plugin features. There is also the point of cost because ReadyAPI requires licensing and Karate is open-source.

I would recommend this solution to people who need official support. For companies who have experts in open-source technology, they can avoid using ReadyAPI. I think that it would come down to the specific client, or project.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of ReadyAPI is as a testing tool for mock data testing. I'm a technical consultant and we are customers of this solution. 

I like that it's easy to automate within our deployment and to have the ability for more data-driven testing. ReadyAPI is also easy to integrate. 

I would ideally like to see a more user-friendly UI to replace what is currently there. Secondly, we never know when there's going to be a license upgrade and it would be helpful to receive an automated email prior to license expiry or some kind of auto-enabled system for license upgrades to give us an alert or some kind of notification before the license expires.

I've been using this solution for one year. 

The solution is stable and reliable. 

I think scaling up and down is possible. There are 10 users of this solution in my team but there would be many others throughout the company. We only use the solution for certain projects so it's not used on a daily basis. 

The customer support is good; they are very knowledgeable and they respond quickly. I was quite impressed.

Positive

I would advise anyone considering implementing this solution to look at the Smartbear documentation on ReadyAPI in order to explore new ways to implement it according to customer requirements and to understand how the product operates.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We use ReadyAPI for testing APIs.

When we are doing API testing we have found it to be very efficient to receive results. Additionally, you are able to do tests directly from the API.

I have used ReadyAPI within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable.

I have found ReadyAPI scalable.

I have used the support and they assisted us with a problem which they resolved. 

I have used TestComplete.

The initial setup could be less complex.

The price of the solution has been fine.

My advice to anyone who wants to do API testing, this solution is easy to use.

I rate ReadyAPI an eight out of ten.

I use ReadyAPI for API and data-driven testing. You can run your APIs through a loop.

ReadyAPI is a QA testing tool. We were able to catch many bugs because we could inject various scenarios running through our data-driven testing. This improves the quality of our products.

ReadyAPI could improve by having dynamic validation information.

I have been using ReadyAPI for approximately eight years.

ReadyAPI is stable.

The scalability of ReadyAPI is good. However, every one of the 20 QA team members uses it independently.

The support from ReadyAPI is very good.

I rate the support from ReadyAPI a four out of five.

Positive

The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward.

The IT team members can install the solution themself.

We have received a return on investment using ReadyAPI.

Our IT team does the maintenance of the solution.

I would recommend others try out the solution to see if it fits their needs.

I rate ReadyAPI a nine out of ten.

The primary use case is for APIs and API testing.

The feature I find valuable is project management. It allows us to organize our test cases and suits inside the project. It also gives the ability to store the variables in terms of properties so they can be used across test cases and test suits, so they can be placed at the project level or test suit level, or test case level.

It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased. The solution can be improved by adding redundancy to protect the data from being erased. I would like to have the database integration like using the JDVC improved. The last thing would be a more user-friendly way to update the definition and refactor the definitions.

I have been using the solution for three and a half years.

The solution is stable.

The solution has met our requirements and appears to be scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. I give it an eight out of ten for simplicity.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated Postman. The selling point for the solution over Postman is the project management features.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

I manage a testing team made up of four people including myself that use the solution daily.

ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible.

Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions. ReadyAPI should also include the ability to add and modify existing files.

I've been using ReadyAPI for almost fifteen years.

ReadyAPI is stable.

The initial setup is straightforward for anybody with experience.

ReadyAPI is moderately priced, with added costs for more plugins.

I would rate ReadyAPI eight out of ten.

I am a test manager, and we have testers who are experts with these tools. We primarily use this solution for API testing and integration. We have an on-premises deployment.

The training for this solution is very good. The integration with Jenkins is good.

The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them.

Overall, the process is simple.

I would like to see a better dashboard for monitoring in the next release of this solution.

The reporting needs to be improved.

Some versions of the software have had bugs, but in general, it is quite stable.

Scaling this solution is quite easy. I had some problems migrating to the cloud, with Java, but overall it is easy.

We have about twenty users for this solution, although it depends on the project. Some projects have fewer users.

We have not needed to contact technical support.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.