ReadyAPI Reviews

ReadyAPI can be used on the cloud and on-premise, and we are using both methods. We are using the solution locally as a server for test automation. It is local but we are also using Service Pro which is for virtualization and is on the cloud. The integration of the script happens on the dedicated test automation server on the cloud.

We use the solution for coverage of database response validation and service support validation.

ReadyAPI has benefited our organization. I will give a comparison between the open source and the commercial version of ReadyAPI. On average we used to automate five to seven scenarios using the open source version. However, we have seen that we can automate more than 25 to 30 scenarios using the commercial version.

The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the ready-to-use assertions and filters which can perform the validation. If we want to filter out any value, the filters are available. Apart from that database integration, if you want to go ahead and perform validation in the database layer it is possible with the ready-to-use feature available. The execution and reporting are rich features.

The Jenkins plugin integration is good when we are running it in a headless mode.

ReadyAPI can improve because it is limited to only SOAP and REST services. They should update the solution to include more protocols so that other people are not limited to SOAP and REST services. Other than would be able to utilize it.

We should be given control over some of the customization of the reports, such as what things are to be included, and what are not to be included.

I have been using ReadyAPI for more than 10 years.

ReadyAPI is a commercial tool and stability is one of the expectations that it does fulfill.

The solution is scalable. Whatever scripts are created, it is pretty easy to upgrade them based on any schema changes. If there are any scenarios that are to be updated, it is easy when compared to other solutions that are skill-based tools.

We have 12 people who are using ReadyAPI and we do not plan to add any more to the team.

The support from ReadyAPI is very good. They offer support through different avenues, such as email, and Skype. The level of quality depends on the license you have. Additionally, if you do not have support as part of the license, there are lots of forums, blogs, and many for help available. We will not get stuck in any of the issues that arise.

I have used other tools prior to ReadyAPI.

The initial setup of ReadyAPI was straightforward, which included the local installation and having a dedicated test automation server for the executions.

If the entire access and everything are in place with the licenses the whole process of deployment should not take more than five minutes.

We have one person for the deployment of the solution

We have received a return on investment using ReadyAPI. If we were using another tool we would have to have more team members for the automation.

We have approximately 12 licenses in place. There are other solutions that are more expensive than ReadyAPI that have more features, but if the scope of the project is limited to SOAP and REST service, then this is the best option.

If I compare the price of ReadyAPI with DevTest, DevTest is a lot less expensive. We have approximately 19 DevTest licenses, five ServiceV Pro licenses, and two web servers. The total cost is approximately $19,000 USD using ReadyAPI and a similar setup with DevTest would be at least $50,000 USD.

All the features are included with the license with ReadyAPI.

I have evaluated other solutions.

Whatever scripts we have created, we have to maintain them, but the solution itself does not require maintenance.

This solution is limited to only SOAP and REST services. There can be one free month license available if there is proof of concept to be conducted, then go ahead. It is easily available.

I rate ReadyAPI a nine out of ten.

I use ReadyAPI for API testing. We have microservices, and we are using it for the API testing on them.

We are using it for testing. We test all the API calls. Without it, we cannot release anything. It helps us find issues with the implemented APIs. 

It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast. 

It has nice things, like making data-driven testing that is fairly quick and easy to do.

The solution is stable.

Its basic pricing is fair.

It's scalable. 

I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects. You cannot have a massive project with all the tests. With multiple projects, you have to get the API created all over again, and I'm not aware of any other solution in case you're using an APIX where you have to define that in all the projects that you are using. That's kind of a pain. You have to keep defining it, and only then can you use it. I like to break up the projects into something that's manageable. However, it makes that a little challenging. 

Sometimes, in trying to make creating tests faster, there are issues. It makes it easier to search and replace variables or anything if I'm writing it and using, say, any of the programming languages. However, with this one, it is very hard. You cannot search for a specific test. Any of those things are impossible. That is one of the big issues that I don't like. I'd often wish I could transition to something like Python or things like that.

In the next release, I would like to see a way by which we can share the code between multiple projects. Each project is an XML file. I cannot use code more than once unless I go and manually copy the code I create in one project into a different one. I'm not aware of any better way to do that.

The solution can be a little pricey.

I've used the solution for over six years. 

The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. We haven't seen it crash or freeze. 

Our system is quite scalable. We have many things that handle auto-scaling groups, which scales quite well. We have quite a bit of devices, millions of devices, and each time it scales very well. There's no problem with it. We have never had problems due to an area that didn't allow us to scale. 

There may be 50 million devices talking to our cloud. It's quite sizeable. 

I'm not sure if there are plans to increase usage. 

We are currently servicing ourselves and our customers well. I'm not aware of any plans to increase. I'm not aware of any growth plans.

We are supporting the solution. Our engineers are supporting everything, so there is no separate support group or outside assistance. 

If our team needs help, we get it through SMartBear. It's proper. You have to write to them and wait for a reply. It's not bad. With support, we have gone for a single-user license, so given that this is the best they can do, it could be better in that we could pay more and get more service. I wish I could have someone to talk with just to figure out how I can solve some of the problems I've had.

I haven't had any user group meetings or anything like that. They don't do any of those things. Occasionally they will have a webinar that might cover an aspect of the solution. Sometimes you're so busy you don't have time to go to those things.

We've always used this solution. We started by using this product.

Everything is deployed on AWS. There is a deployment engineer who's doing the deployment. I don't know too much about it. We don't use anything like CD, CI/CD, or anything like that since we don't have the people to do those things. It's all manual. We have just one person (that's an architect) that handles deployment and maintenance. 

Each deployment could take anywhere from 15 minutes to a half hour.

In terms of ROI, in our situation, I'm the only one using it. It helps me for my purposes and this is precisely what we are using it for, for API testing, which actually helps us find issues. I'm not sure what the ROI would be.

Desktop licensing is not bad. However, if you go higher than that, they're a little pricey, I would say. 

For each license, they charge the same amount, which is less than $1,000 for each desktop license.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I'm using an installed version. It's installed on my desktop. We're using the most up-to-date version. 

I'd advise potential new users to look at many other tools. Do some detailed analysis of things like Postman and those other tools too, and then if you have more technical experts, try Python or others, including JavaScript-based ones. See which would be best. Consider how you would use it as well. That way, you'll be picking the right tool. 

I'd rate it five out of ten.

We are service providers, so a customer will come to us and ask us to build a service. We'll build it, and then we'll use ReadyAPI to test the services before we publish it.

The solution got us more into automated testing, as far as web services go, so now we're able to mass-test.

The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test.

I would say if anything needs to be improved, maybe it's some aspects of the user interface.

The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing.

I've been using this solution for about six years now. 

I think the solution is pretty stable. I haven't had any crashing issues. It's actually been pretty solid lately. When we started using it, it wasn't very solid at all, but that was many years ago.

It is a scalable solution. There are currently about six users in our organization. 

I would rate the technical support as a five out of five. They're phenomenal. 

Positive

The complexity depends on your skill level. For somebody who doesn't know a whole lot about web services and how they're structured, it's kind of complex to set up.

The deployment was done in-house. I manage updates when the solution pushes them out; other than that, it's pretty easy. 

We definitely see an ROI with this solution. 

We use fixed licenses, and the last time I checked, I want to say it's around $680 per seat per year.

My advice is that based on the flexibility of the application, the ease of use, and the price, it's definitely worth it. There's no other product out there comparable to the price we found.

I would rate this solution as a ten out of ten. 

I'm using the solution for API testing. My developer developed their APIs in Postman, so ReadyAPI has this integration factor, and from there, I exported my APIs and imported them into ReadyAPI. Every API I convert into a functional test. 

The conversion of the testing and the conversion of those APIs into a functional test is a great aspect of the solution. 

It's priced well. When I compared it with the Tosca, Eggplant, or other tools that offer API testing open source, this came out on top. 

This is a scriptless, codeless tool. 

It's easy to implement.

This is a stable product.

In general, they just need to be better. They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great. It's costly when it comes to a small company, and the features are not that smooth. While the application testing is fine, the API performance testing needs work.

Maintaining your scripts does take work. 

I've been using the solution for one year.

It's stable and reliable. We haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance is pretty good. 

Right now, I'm the only person using the solution. I'm not sure how scalable it is.

I purchased the license from a vendor based in India, and when I have any issues, I reach out to them directly. I create an incident ticket, and they help resolve the issue. Usually, it takes two or three working days to sort a problem out. It's a bit delayed. However, it's not bad.

Neutral

The solution is simple to implement and very straightforward. 

You have a license manager that you have to install in your license server or machine, and then you just have to install the instance of ReadyAPI.

The pricing was well within our budget. It's reasonable and not too expensive. 

We pay $3,000 annually for a floating license. actually. That allows another person from my company to use it as well. It's a cloud-based license. 

I'm an end-user.

I'd advise new users that this is not a free tool. If you don't have a budget, you can go try Postman. However, if you have $4,000 or $5,000 a year, ReadyAPI is one of the best tools to use. It is easy to learn, and it is easy to work with. The features are very good.

In general, I would recommend this tool to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We mainly use this solution for testing APIs, and we also use it for load testing. SmartBear has a free version as well, which is called SoapAPI, but it does not include all of the features we wanted, so we got the paid version. The pro version has many benefits, including the load testing and more features for the API testing as well. Since we are mainly focused on backend testing, we thought it would be useful for us to have this license.

We had been using Postman, but Postman only has a couple of solutions to automate the API tests, and with ReadyAPI we can do both the API testing and the load testing. I haven't seen any other tool that offers both types of tests in a single tool. This is very helpful for us, and it's one of the main reasons why we chose this service.

We have an older version of ReadyAPI and it's not supporting our whole tests, so we have had to migrate some or we've had difficulties running them because they're very old script. Better compatibility or more support for the older versions would be helpful. 

Also, I've been seeing the same UI for many years, since I was using the free version, and the paid version looks the same. I think the UI could be a little bit better.

I have had experience with this solution for about five years.

The solution is stable almost all of the time. I'm not exactly sure if any other users are getting hang or not, but I have never faced an issue with hanging.

The scalability of the solution is good. I think about 150 testers in our organization use ReadyAPI. About 250 to 300 of our developers use the free version, SoapUI, to do basic API testing.

I think the support is good, but it's not immediate because we have many layers. If I have a question, I take it to a person in my organization, and then they contact tech support. It doesn't take too long, maybe one or two days, but I usually go to the SmartBear community online and look for an answer there. 

I used Postman to test the APIs, but with Postman it's just the basic testing, like unit testing. To do an intensive level of regression testing or load testing, Postman doesn't help much. It is still good to use for the manual part, but for automation, I feel like ReadyAPI is better.

This tool is very easy to set up and install because you can download ReadyAPI and you just need the product key. It was done in a matter of minutes.

We have an employee who deals directly with the access keys and maintenance. I think I have been on this specific project for about a year and a half, and I have only seen a maintenance window two times, and they typically don't last long or they do it in the off-times so they don't really affect my work.

I would say they should know exactly what they're looking for because if they're looking for API testing, this is a perfect tool. If they want to automate the process, then go ahead and use ReadyAPI. It is the best tool that I have ever seen for API testing. However, if you're just using it for manual API testing, I would say get the trial version or use Postman. We also use JMeter for performance or load testing, but ReadyAPI gives both API and load testing. If you want to do both, this is a good tool.

I would rate this solution as a seven out of ten because we haven't integrated it yet with any deployment tools, so I don't know how difficult that process will be. 

We are it using it with the license on individual machines.

We have a bulk of APIs for our different products. Previously, we used to do  Postman, and for automation, we used to do C-Sharp code. However, we came to ReadyAPI as it is a tool that can give some exposure to the person who does not have much core coding or programming knowledge. 

We like the basic features. We can add additional features. It is a hybrid kind of tool. Over here, can add our own code, and we can write the assertion with the script. As a programmer, it is a good tool. We can utilize it dynamically if you have programming skills.

It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming. 

Currently, we are hosting. We have repositories under the Git site, and we are checking our code there. We are executing it with the AWS cloud. The integration with GitHub is not there. They have given us some options. However, it is not workable. We have to check in or pull our code with Visual Studio right now. We have to use Visual Studio to manage that integration, actually.

The UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't. If you want to minimize/maximize it and if you want to use it on a hub screen, you can't use it. It is not that user-friendly. 

Cloud integration should be there as modern work is in the cloud.

We've been using the solution for the last two years. 

It is a great tool and has great exposure for future API automation. The only thing that is missing is the integration with the different cloud services so that we can manage that project in the cloud and check in and check out the code. Currently, that core functionality is missing. 

It is a scalable solution. However, it is not so flexible. If multiple team members are working together, they have to frequently pull and push the code to sync with the single team and take the latest code, which other team members develop. For better functionality, we have to go every time to Visual Studio.

Multiple teams are using the solution right now. On my team, we have seven to eight people using it. I'm unaware of how many people are using it from the client side. Users are a mix of automation testers and manual functional testers. 

I do not personally contact technical support. Another team member handled that aspect. We used to communicate with SmartBear, and if there were any critical issues, we would reach out. However, I don't handle that aspect. From what I understand, support is helpful. 

Previously, we used to code the API automation in C-Sharp. That could be handled by the core programming person. I'm a core programming guy, so I can manage that code and write the new scripts for the automation. However, we found that we could utilize this tool so that a person with basic knowledge and not core programming knowledge could also contribute to this tool with the API automation. That is the basic module.

This tool is giving exposure to resources with little programming knowledge. They can also start contributing to this, and certainly, they can learn the programming part of that tool as well. However, in terms of the UI part, through the UI, we can automate the API. It depends on our logic, and how we want to utilize the different assertions and different checks. If you have programming knowledge, you can also use that tool with the programming part. The idea, however, was to make it more useable for everybody.

The initial setup of ReadyAPI was considered to be easy. It's quite straightforward. We have to download the .EXE and install it and register with the license. That's it. 

It will take not more than five minutes if you follow the instructions.

I'm not sure of the exact cost. 

We are a customer and end-user. 

If you are going to use this product, you should have a basic knowledge of APIs and how APIs work. This is an API automation tool specific to automating the APIs. If you have previous exposure to an open-source tool, like Postman, then you can easily get started with this tool. However, you must go through basic training if you don't know APIs and never work on APIs.

I'd rate it six out of ten. It gives us core value, however, the UI isn't great.

I'm using ReadyAPI for services, automation, security testing, and manual updates.

The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use.

The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not.

I have been using ReadyAPI for approximately seven years.

ReadyAPI is a stable solution.

When I was using an older version of the solution I had to use community support online. I have not contacted support from ReadyAPI directly.

The initial setup of ReadyAPI is easy. You only need to install it.

ReadyAPI is one of the best tools which is available in the market to automate and test manually.

Most of our employees know how to use the solution well and value it.

Utilizing ReadyAPI is highly recommended. It's a user-friendly and efficient tool that can meet your fundamental requirements, both in manual and automated methods. It's a reliable tool that's easy to use and there aren't many better alternatives available.

I rate ReadyAPI a seven out of ten.

We use ReadyAPI for API test automation. These APIs are developed by our development team and we need to validate the response. We use it for manual testing and then automation for those particular manual test cases. This has been my first experience completing API test automation or using tools for this purpose.

We get the data from an Excel sheet and then we input it into the API request to validate the response which we get. That is all done automatically using the automation suit I created on ReadyAPI. We save the data from the response into an Excel sheet. In my team, there are five people who are using it and we have five different licenses.

The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation.

This solution is a pro version of SoapUI, which is a licensed version. There is a free version of SoapU but this requires coding and knowledge of groovy scripting. The overall scope of this solution is limited and could be improved. 

Stability of this solution could be improved. When we run test simultaneously, the systems gets stuck and we often need to restart it and try again. 

It is a scalable solution.

The initial setup is straightforward or works similarly to a Windows application. Once you open it up, you import the APIs which you want to automate or which you want to run. It is easier to setup compared to other API test automation tools. Deployment takes a few minutes. 

I would recommend this tool to others for basic test automation with good performance. A beginner level knowledge of groovy scripting will be sufficient to use this solution.

I would rate it a seven out of ten because I haven't used any other test automation tools so I don't have anything to compare it to.

We use ReadyAPI to build our own testing cases. We are able to use the same testing cases to complete automation tests, performance test team and security tests at the same time.

This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing.

Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions.

I have used this solution for a year and a half. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

This is a lot of documentation provided for support but they still need some important information to be added. For this reason, I check other communities discussions and forums.

I would rate the support team a six out of ten because they haven't always been able to solve my issue. 

Neutral

It is easy to install, but it takes time to set up your testing environment. You need to figure out how your API works and save the mutual authentications. You need to know the specification of your API partner and this takes time. It is not difficult to maintain.

I introduced the solution to my previous company. I just read the documentation and then got started.

It is more expensive than other API testing tools. For example, Postman is an open source tool and is free to use. ReadyAPI is a commercial tool and licenses. need to be purchased. It costs approximately $200 000 Taiwan Dollars for three years.

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten. 

I have used Postman before, but not for a long time. I definitely prefer ReadyAPI. It is very easy to use and it's very easy to learn. They also offer online virtual training and certifications. 

The documentation provided is good but it could be more comprehensive. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

The primary use case is for APIs and API testing.

The feature I find valuable is project management. It allows us to organize our test cases and suits inside the project. It also gives the ability to store the variables in terms of properties so they can be used across test cases and test suits, so they can be placed at the project level or test suit level, or test case level.

It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased. The solution can be improved by adding redundancy to protect the data from being erased. I would like to have the database integration like using the JDVC improved. The last thing would be a more user-friendly way to update the definition and refactor the definitions.

I have been using the solution for three and a half years.

The solution is stable.

The solution has met our requirements and appears to be scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. I give it an eight out of ten for simplicity.

Before choosing the solution I evaluated Postman. The selling point for the solution over Postman is the project management features.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

I manage a testing team made up of four people including myself that use the solution daily.