TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    OpenText UFT One

    Score7.6 out of 10
    N/AUnified Functional Testing (UFT, formerly known as HP UFT and before that QuickTest Professional or HP QTP) is a functional and performance testing tool acquired by Micro Focus from Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, now from OpenText.N/A

    ReadyAPI

    Score7 out of 10
    N/AReadyAPI (formerly SoapUI Pro, LoadUI Pro, and ServiceV Pro) is a REST and SOAP API functional testing tool that enables software developers, QA engineers, and manual testers to work together to create, maintain, and execute complex end-to-end API tests in their CI/CD pipelines without needing to code.N/A
    Pricing
    OpenText UFT OneReadyAPI
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    OpenText UFT OneReadyAPI
    Free Trial
    NoYes
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoYes
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details——
    More Pricing Information
    Community Pulse
    OpenText UFT OneReadyAPI
    Considered Both Products
    OpenText
    Chose OpenText UFT One

    We need to look at open source tools if the team has time to learn like Selenium.

    Selenium can integrate with just about anything to give you a robust framework such as Maven for source code compilation, Test NG to drive tests, Jenkins or Hudson to integrate into a Continuous …

    Incentivized
    Chose OpenText UFT One
    [My] company uses UFT across different projects and different departments for all types of testing and automation.
    Incentivized
    SmartBear
    Chose ReadyAPI
    1. Less coding.
    2. Easy to use.
    3. Even people with less experience in coding can use it.
    Incentivized
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    93%
    Would buy again
    27 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    88%
    Delivers good value for the price
    23 Answers
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    97%
    Happy with the feature set
    28 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    93%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    14 Answers
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    91%
    Implementation went as expected
    21 Answers
    Best Alternatives
    OpenText UFT OneReadyAPI
    Small Businesses
    TestComplete
    Score8 out of 10
    TestComplete
    Score8 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    ReadyAPI
    Score7 out of 10
    OpenText UFT One
    Score7.6 out of 10
    Enterprises
    SoapUI Open Source
    Score8.7 out of 10
    SoapUI Open Source
    Score8.7 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    OpenText UFT OneReadyAPI
    Likelihood to Recommend
    9.0
    (11 ratings)
    7.0
    (66 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    -
    (0 ratings)
    7.3
    (18 ratings)
    Usability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    9.9
    (3 ratings)
    Availability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    9.0
    (1 ratings)
    Performance
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    Support Rating
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    8.0
    (6 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    Product Scalability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    OpenText UFT OneReadyAPI
    Likelihood to Recommend
    OpenText
    UFT is well suited if the price is not an issue, and if the requirement is about testing different technologies. If the application is based on Legacy platforms like Siebel or Mainframe, UFT fares quite well. For low cost web-based projects, there are other cheap and open source tools available. If it is about API testing or Mobile Testing, it is better to use other tools like TOSCA.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    As stated, we do a LOT of API testing, the swaggerhub import makes it easy to add APIs. This is very well-suited, as well as easy management of the steps/cases/suites inside of ReadyAPI. The one thing I do wish ReadyAPI was better suited for is changes to data, we have a lot of test cases in ReadyAPI and if we make a change to how the backend data is structured, one-by-one adjustments need to be made to the steps. Less appropriate, UI testing.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    OpenText
    • The simple front end will allow novice users to easily grasp the basics of automation and give them confidence to try things for themselves.
    • UFT can scale up and run across multiple machines from a single controller, such as ALM, enabling hundreds of tests to be executed overnight.
    • There is an active support community out there, both official HPE based and independent users. This means if you do encounter a problem there is always someone out there to help you.
    • The later versions have many add-ins to plug in to other tools within the QA world.
    • Expert users are able to utilise the many native functions and also build their own to get the most out of the tool and impress people as they walk past and see the magic happening on the screen.
    • UFT also has LeanFT bundled with it, allowing automated testing at the api level - if you can convince the developers to let you in there.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • Ease of use (ability to automatically import API definitions, Jenkins integration for running in the pipeline).
    • Detailed test reports (allow to easily identify weak spots during both functional and performance testing).
    • One platform for all tests (allows to closely couple and reuse existent tests).
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    OpenText
    • Its licensing cost is very high making it a very expensive tool. due to this many organisations are exploring options of license free tools like Selenium for automation. Though learning curve is large in case of Selenium but it is very cost effective & you an get lot of support online for Selenium.
    • Though the scripting time is less since its easy to create automation scripts, the execution time is relatively higher as it takes the lot of CPU & RAM.
    • Though UFT is quite stable but during long execution cycles we do get frequent browser crashing issues.
    • In terms of costing TestComplete is also one option which is not free but comes with modular pricing. You can buy what you need, when you need.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • Needs good documentation
    • Need to improve the performance of the tool
    • Setup is very complex and for such [a] commercial tool, it should easy and straightforward
    • Tool says it supports security testing but in reality, it is not at an extensive level.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    SmartBear
    The only reason this isn't a '10' is because of the cost. This product is definitely meant for organizations who are serious about making sure they invest in the full ecosystem of API design, development, maintenance. But there is a significant cost associated with this investment. and because of this cost (and the non-tangible output for executives), it is a difficult line-item to justify in this post-pandemic environment.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Usability
    OpenText
    The ui is clean but there are lots of setting snd options which one must be fully aware so it will aid him/her during scripting
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    SoapUI allows us to combine multiple tests and adhere
    to the sequence that they need to run in order to complete successfully.
    It has an excellent GUI design and the reporting mechanism is also very
    good. It does consume a lot of memory though during concurrent testing
    Read full review
    Reliability and Availability
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    SmartBear
    Soap UI has managed to continuously build on it's solid foundation and keep improving by each release. It is by far the most dependable and accurate testing tool out there of its kind. Available via connecting to VM's created as SoapUI test machines give access to it anytime, anywhere practically.
    Read full review
    Performance
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    SmartBear
    It has an excellent GUI design and the reporting mechanism is also very
    good. It does consume a lot of memory though during concurrent testing.
    Read full review
    Support Rating
    OpenText
    HPE are quick to reply and it's possible to get through to the actual developers shuold the case warrent it. Their online system allows updates and tracking of all incedents raised.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    To be honest, we didnt had much issues with the support, as there is already plenty of online communities available for help. But if ever there were some minor issues with the membership or the certificates, the tech support was always quick and efficient enough to resolve the issue ASAP
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Implementation Rating
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    SmartBear
    no very easy but lacks documentation
    Read full review
    Alternatives Considered
    OpenText
    1. It works solid for automate SAP and S/4 Hana applications and Fiori too. 2. Teams are well versed about UFT One 3. Able to handle maintained execution results 4. Publish Automation execution results in well manner to the leadership team/stake holders 5. More help content available 6. Able to understand non technical resources about normal view.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    ReadyAPI provides intuitive GUI capabilities compared to their own open source product. When compared to Postman, ReadyAPI also supports SOAP based services, which is a saver especially when integrating with legacy or other third party systems.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Scalability
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    SmartBear
    It has an excellent GUI design and the reporting mechanism is also very
    good. It does consume a lot of memory though during concurrent testing. However, I have read that added monitoring tools have been added, which if so the 7 could possibly go to a 8 or 9.
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    OpenText
    • Reduces the total workload of keeping the team to test older (regression) functionality. QA testers can concentrate on ad-hoc and exploratory testing, saving time and effort across the entire project.
    • Has built a better infrastructure for the client applications on which we can rely on for stability and providing regression results for any new features being developed.
    • Led the applications a step closer to implementing agile practices and DevOps across the entire organization. Thus, providing a better turnaround time of new features to the customers and less maintenance headaches for the BAU team to address.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • Very quick regression testing, hence having the testing results very soon, even the same day of deployment
    • for same above reason, it can save money for corporation (so no tedious, costly and erroneous manual testings)
    • The test reports are compatible with TestNG, so the corporation can integrate the reports in our Autamation frameworks such as Allure or Jira Zephyr
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots