No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

ReadyAPI Test vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

ReadyAPI Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
20th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (15th)
Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
26th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (13th), Test Automation Tools (24th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 2.3%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.7%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ReadyAPI Test2.3%
Telerik Test Studio1.7%
Other96.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Luis Sanchez - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Assurance Test Engineer at Dormakaba
Helps in data, regression, performance, security, and functional testing
ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution.
Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"In my personal experience, Soap UI NG Pro added a lot of value to our product."
"It adds to the productivity of developers and QAs, so there is definitely a return."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"We chose this tool because it's lightweight, simple and intuitive."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"I primarily use Soap UI to test XML/JSON requests and responses for APIs hosted by us and our vendors."
"SoapUI Pro is a good tool when it comes to API design and orchestration. Additionally, it is beneficial for functional and for performance testing."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
 

Cons

"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."
"I think their user-information sites should be better defined by SoapUI. For example, if I want to hit that virtualize server, let's say, with a 100K load — what is the bare minimum requirement?"
"The tools that are stated by SmartBear speaks for itself, but when it comes to improvements, there could be a release which only aims for the development of beginners in terms of understanding the tools that are laid by SmartBear."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
"The cost is not that bad."
"It is free of charge."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."
"SoapUI Pro is open source but it has a subscription-based model which involves some more features. At the moment we are using the free version. The Pro version requires a license, and it is an annual license to use it."
"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Construction Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise20
No data available
 

Also Known As

SoapUI NG Pro
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler
Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Find out what your peers are saying about ReadyAPI Test vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.