OpenText UFT Developer vs. SoapUI Open Source, supported by SmartBear

Good for simple requests, simple scripts, assertions, and small workflows. Also not bad with the Open Source version if savvy with code as you can do a lot with custom functionality.Free version has limited compatibility with scripts/projects created from the Pro version, but functionality-wise can probably be made up with coding. As such, the free version may not be too suitable for complex scripts or for those who are not familiar with coding as functionality/usability may be limited.

Incentivized

• Ease of implementation
• Ease of use
• User friendly interface

Incentivized

• I actually like SoapUI as it is, I have not found things to improve, except for the speed of response is very complex services.

Incentivized

Compared to SoapUI, we have been using "light" tools like RestClient extension in Firefox, or Postman. Compared to Postman, SoapUI is more simple for WSDL / SOAP webservices, as SoapUI generate all envelop, but Postman does not. For Rest API, I think that Postman is a little above SoapUI, but not too far away.

Incentivized

• Testing resolves most of the issues in the development phases.
• User friendliness of the app makes it good.
• Overall client happiness depends on the clean project, which is possible by testing.

Incentivized