Ghost Inspector vs. ReadyAPI

1. It's amazing for all kinds of browser testing. 2. Very easy to use and you can implement it to cover your tests in a short time. 3. You don't need to be a coding guru, many stuff are autogenerated or builtin and can be easily implemented without huge efforts 4. Reporting and UI is easy to understand and navigate through

Incentivized

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

• UI Integration tests
• Asynchronas execution of suites and tests
• Easy way to generate steps of the tests with Chrome plugin

Incentivized

• 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

• The number of available integrations is small, but I see more integrations are coming on the way
• Provide builtin alerting system in case of test failures
• Improve provide more roles not only user and administrator. A viewer role for example

Incentivized

• 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

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

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

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.

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.

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

no very easy but lacks documentation

1. Faster in terms of time when building the integration browser tests 2. No or minimum development skills needed. 3. No server management is needed on our end. 4. Covers a lot of browsers and cases 5. Builtin integrations for different stuff like slack and PD 6. Fast and provides asynchronous executions

Incentivized

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

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.

• We saved a lot of money by using this tool instead of purchasing expensive ones
• The implementation of integrations test was supposed to take 6 months of development. With GI it took 2 months only
• Training QA to build integration tests using GI is much less that any other tool that might need development skills

Incentivized

• 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