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 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 Excel sheet feature is good."
"It's easy to implement."
"The performance testing capabilities are very good."
"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"The solution scales well."
"The utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"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 out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"The Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"SoapUI Pro is a good tool when it comes to API design and orchestration. Additionally, it is beneficial for functional and for performance testing."
"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."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"Performance and memory management both need to be improved because other solutions use less memory for the same amount of data."
"Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful."
"It doesn't have connectors to the NoSQL database. This is one of the things where they do not have a very solid strategy today. Other solutions have an in-built mechanism where I can directly and easily connect. An API is more around a user submitting a request on the frontend. It then hits the backend, puts the data, and responds back. If I am hitting MongoDB or NoSQL databases, I do not have ready-made inbuilt solutions in ReadyAPI that can easily help me in automating it faster. In our organization, we deal with NoSQL databases, and therefore, we need Groovy. We just cannot have a connector from ReadyAPI to do that. I have to write Groovy scripts. If you have themes that are predominantly using MongoDB, it leads to more maintenance and support activity because we are introducing more code into our commission. In terms of additional features, it can have cloud support. This is one of the things where we are getting into cloud support. We'll see how it works, but it is one of the doubts that we still have."
"There is room for improvement in ReadyAPI, particularly in the user interface."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"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 find that I'm fighting with the opportunities to order requests."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."
"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."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
ReadyAPI is ranked 6th 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.