OpenText Functional Testing and ReadyAPI compete in the software testing category, with OpenText having an advantage in automation frameworks while ReadyAPI is notable for API testing and CI/CD integration. OpenText is superior in comprehensive lifecycle management, while ReadyAPI is optimized for agile environments.
Features: OpenText supports GUI automation, mobile testing, and a variety of technologies with advanced frameworks. It integrates effectively with ALM for lifecycle management. ReadyAPI offers user-friendly API testing and seamless CI/CD tool integration, making it ideal for agile methodologies.
Room for Improvement: OpenText could improve in browser compatibility, interface changes, and support for modern programming languages. ReadyAPI might enhance integration with test management tools and focus on performance improvements in load testing situations to boost user experience.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both products provide strong on-premises deployment options. OpenText offers greater cloud flexibility with private cloud choices, while ReadyAPI focuses more on public cloud deployments. Customer service reviews for OpenText are mixed, with some slow responses, whereas ReadyAPI generally receives praise for responsive support but faces challenges with licensing flexibility.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText's high licensing costs are counterbalanced by extensive application support and potential long-term ROI. ReadyAPI, while less feature-rich, offers a lower price point, appealing to organizations prioritizing API testing. Both tools promise significant ROI by streamlining testing and enhancing efficiency, with the choice hinging on organizational needs and budget.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
Organizations can't wait for this lengthy process, especially when they are under pressure with their timelines.
Support cases are easily created and attended to promptly, depending on urgency.
The technical support is rated eight out of ten.
SmartBear had an ALM tool that helped manage project documentation, including Jira-related specifications, test plans, and test cases.
Running them in parallel allows you to consume multiple runtime licenses and just execute the tests that don't have conflicting priorities and get through a lot of volume much quicker.
The tool can be installed on all computers used by developers or test automation engineers.
I rate ReadyAPI between five to six for scalability due to complexities associated with scripting.
ReadyAPI's performance testing capabilities can impact API scalability assessments.
One of the key stability issues was that Windows would consume memory without releasing it, leading to regression testing crashes.
Once all configurations and preparations are done, it is very stable.
Incorporating behavior-driven development tests would enhance the capabilities of UFT One.
We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory without releasing it, leading to crashes during regression testing.
If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again.
One issue I found with ReadyAPI is related to event listeners compared to JMeter or SoapUI.
I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor.
There are many open-source tools with no cost, and there are no-code tools that are less expensive than UFT.
The pricing or licensing policy of OpenText is a bit expensive, however, it's one of the best solutions in the market.
It's cheaper than Tricentis Tosca but more expensive than some others.
The pricing of ReadyAPI is reasonable, considering its functionality compared to other tools in the market.
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs.
UFT supports Oracle, SAP, PeopleSoft, and other non-web applications, making automation feasible.
OpenText Functional Testing has an impressive ability to connect to mobile devices and its ability to test so many different types of software, whether it be mainframe, APIs, mobile, web, or desktop.
The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools.
It also aids in faster feedback to developers, allowing them to implement developments in a sprint without the need for extensive testing afterwards, thus improving our time to market metrics.
ReadyAPI is a versatile tool for creating multiple testing frameworks and validating various parameters seamlessly.
ReadyAPI is valuable for web service automation and allowing us to generate test cases and automate processes.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.1% |
| ReadyAPI | 1.6% |
| Other | 91.3% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 5 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 5 |
| Large Enterprise | 28 |
OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.
OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.
What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.
ReadyAPI is an all-in-one automated testing platform that allows teams to create, manage, and execute automated functional, security, and performance tests in one centralized interface.
ReadyAPI Features
Some of ReadyAPI’s key features include:
ReadyAPI Benefits
Some of the benefits of using ReadyAPI include:
Reviews from Real Users
Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by Dell EMC Unity users.
PeerSpot user Vallalarasu P., Test Architect at a tech services company, states, “ReadyAPI is one of the best tools for API testing because they have made a single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and also service actualization. We also have virtual work that can be an add-in within ReadyAPI. For integration for CACD, they have something called TestEngine, which can also be an add-on for ReadyAPI. We use Python request library and things like that but if you're a bigger organization with hundreds of APIs, then ReadyAPI is a one-stop solution for complete API testing. If you consider TestComplete and other products for an equivalent outcome, you might get something nearly comparable, butReadyAPI is the outstanding product.”
An IT Manager at an insurance company says the solution has “Fast automation, less coding, and is pretty lightweight. 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."
Balamurugan A., Manager at a financial services firm, comments, “We like the user interface. The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools.
They have interfaces with our performance tools, so we were able to leverage all of these integrations and plugins. It is very good from an integrative solution standpoint.”
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.
