We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One 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."It's simple to set up."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"The dashboards are very good and consolidate all of the tests that you are performing with the client."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are its robust functionality and collaboration capabilities."
"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 most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"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."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"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."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"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."
"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"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."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". 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 One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT One 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.
