We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and ReadyAPI 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."One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"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 great thing about ReadyAPI is that it has a wide variety of functions. You can test any API that you come across. You are not limited to one type of API. It supports many APIs."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The tool could be a little easier."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"The reporting is not very robust and needs to be improved."
"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."
"I would like to see a better dashboard for monitoring in the next release of this solution."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"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."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, 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". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. ReadyAPI 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.
