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."It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."
"The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"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."
"For anyone who does not have experience with automation, ReadyAPI provides a sense of comfort, especially for testers who find it hard to go directly into coding."
"The dashboards are very good and consolidate all of the tests that you are performing with the client."
"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."
"One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration."
"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"The solution scales well."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"The solution has some good scanning features."
"SoapUI is uncomplicated and 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."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"Sometimes, if I changed something in ReadyAPI, it would not quickly pick up the change. It used to give me the same error repeatedly, and when I closed the application completely and restarted it, it would pick up that change."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"I would like to see a better dashboard for monitoring in the next release of this solution."
"The content on ReadyAPI in SmartBear Academy is outdated."
"There is a lot of room for improvement, mainly from the point of view of integrating ReadyAPI into the CI pipelines, and also the scripting aspect into Bitbucket."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"I find that I'm fighting with the opportunities to order requests."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
"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."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"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."
"The UI should be improved."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
ReadyAPI is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, 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 "You can achieve any complex task with this tool". 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 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.