TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

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

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    OpenText UFT One

    Score8 out of 10
    N/AUnified Functional Testing (UFT, formerly known as HP UFT and before that QuickTest Professional or HP QTP) is a functional and performance testing tool acquired by Micro Focus from Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, now from OpenText.N/A

    SoapUI Open Source

    Score8.3 out of 10
    N/ASoapUI is an open source API testing tool supported by SmartBear's community, supporting functional and performance testing of APIs.N/A
    Pricing
    OpenText UFT OneSoapUI Open Source
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    OpenText UFT OneSoapUI Open Source
    Free Trial
    NoNo
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details
    More Pricing Information
    Community Pulse
    OpenText UFT OneSoapUI Open Source
    Considered Both Products
    OpenText
    No answer on this topic
    SmartBear
    No answer on this topic
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Would buy again
    5 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    100%
    Happy with the feature set
    5 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Best Alternatives
    OpenText UFT OneSoapUI Open Source
    Small Businesses
    TestComplete
    Score8 out of 10
    TestComplete
    Score8 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    ReadyAPI
    Score6.1 out of 10
    OpenText UFT One
    Score8 out of 10
    Enterprises
    SoapUI Open Source
    Score8.3 out of 10
    ReadyAPI
    Score6.1 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    OpenText UFT OneSoapUI Open Source
    Likelihood to Recommend
    8.0
    (12 ratings)
    8.0
    (6 ratings)
    Usability
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Support Rating
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    OpenText UFT OneSoapUI Open Source
    Likelihood to Recommend
    OpenText
    UFT is well suited if the price is not an issue, and if the requirement is about testing different technologies. If the application is based on Legacy platforms like Siebel or Mainframe, UFT fares quite well. For low cost web-based projects, there are other cheap and open source tools available. If it is about API testing or Mobile Testing, it is better to use other tools like TOSCA.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    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
    Read full review
    Pros
    OpenText
    • The simple front end will allow novice users to easily grasp the basics of automation and give them confidence to try things for themselves.
    • UFT can scale up and run across multiple machines from a single controller, such as ALM, enabling hundreds of tests to be executed overnight.
    • There is an active support community out there, both official HPE based and independent users. This means if you do encounter a problem there is always someone out there to help you.
    • The later versions have many add-ins to plug in to other tools within the QA world.
    • Expert users are able to utilise the many native functions and also build their own to get the most out of the tool and impress people as they walk past and see the magic happening on the screen.
    • UFT also has LeanFT bundled with it, allowing automated testing at the api level - if you can convince the developers to let you in there.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • Ease of implementation
    • Ease of use
    • User friendly interface
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    OpenText
    • Its licensing cost is very high making it a very expensive tool. due to this many organisations are exploring options of license free tools like Selenium for automation. Though learning curve is large in case of Selenium but it is very cost effective & you an get lot of support online for Selenium.
    • Though the scripting time is less since its easy to create automation scripts, the execution time is relatively higher as it takes the lot of CPU & RAM.
    • Though UFT is quite stable but during long execution cycles we do get frequent browser crashing issues.
    • In terms of costing TestComplete is also one option which is not free but comes with modular pricing. You can buy what you need, when you need.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • 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
    Read full review
    Usability
    OpenText
    The ui is clean but there are lots of setting snd options which one must be fully aware so it will aid him/her during scripting
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    No answers on this topic
    Support Rating
    OpenText
    HPE are quick to reply and it's possible to get through to the actual developers shuold the case warrent it. Their online system allows updates and tracking of all incedents raised.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    No answers on this topic
    Alternatives Considered
    OpenText
    1. It works solid for automate SAP and S/4 Hana applications and Fiori too. 2. Teams are well versed about UFT One 3. Able to handle maintained execution results 4. Publish Automation execution results in well manner to the leadership team/stake holders 5. More help content available 6. Able to understand non technical resources about normal view.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    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
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    OpenText
    • Reduces the total workload of keeping the team to test older (regression) functionality. QA testers can concentrate on ad-hoc and exploratory testing, saving time and effort across the entire project.
    • Has built a better infrastructure for the client applications on which we can rely on for stability and providing regression results for any new features being developed.
    • Led the applications a step closer to implementing agile practices and DevOps across the entire organization. Thus, providing a better turnaround time of new features to the customers and less maintenance headaches for the BAU team to address.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    SmartBear
    • 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
    Read full review
    ScreenShots