ReadyAPI Test Reviews

Currently, I'm using this solution to test the API email applications

Usually, our clients are in IT. They have web services - more than 300 web services. We are calling those web services in our front-end applications. In order to verify the actual values from the web service, we use SoapUI to connect with the current client endpoint.

We like that we can do all manual testing for the API.   

We can test as many APIs as we like. 

It's very reliable and very easy to understand. Anyone can learn it very quickly. 

The solution does not have major complications, it's a very simple tool. We can run projects in testing environments, and in production with the production data.

You can do end-to-end testing. You can also do security testing. You can create API projects. It's great in terms of usability.

The license for SoapUI is far better than Postman if you compare the two.  

The initial setup is very easy.

The solution scales well.

It is helpful for individuals, however for a big team, for example, if I change any code in my project, for my colleague, it's difficult for them to use the same. This is the drawback. It's not ideal for teams and works best for individuals. If someone makes edits, it needs to be shared. 

We would like it to be possible to share code in order to effectively work together.

Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang. You might have to close it down and start again. 

We've used the solution for the last four years. 

The solution is very stable and very reliable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. 

At the startup, when you open SoapUI, it takes some time to open. It takes some time to load all the files. There can be some lagging. Apart from that, every time you have to save your project, it can hang. 

The solution is easy to expand. It's scalable.

Around 25 people are using this SoapUI currently, however, mostly, 15 people are using the licensed version and ten people are using the free version. The licensed version is far better. You have so many extra features.

We do plan to increase usage.

There is SmartBear technical support. They are very helpful. If we run into some difficulties, we ask them for help. For example, just three months before, we had some issues with the load testing. We didn't have the tech people here. We asked the SmartBear team to provide us with some people for the SoapUI load test. They provided us with an explanation about the load testing, and how it works in SoapUI and we were able to do it.

We use ReadyAPI and SoapUI. Both products are similar, however, I'm not sure about the pricing. 

The initial setup is not complex. It's very easy. You just need the endpoint, and you add the project, if you want REST API, if you want XML, whatever, you can just add those from the file system. It's very simple. It's very easy for anyone. The entire setup only takes about one hour.

You only need one person to handle the deployment and maintenance. 

We have seen an ROI, however, I can't speak to the exact numbers. We've had good results over the last five years, which is why we recently renewed the license.

The solution does have a free and licensed version. We use both versions. The licensed version, however, does have more features and options. 

We have 15 licenses right now and will likely increase them in the future.

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 extended just last month. 

There aren't any costs beyond the standard licensing.

This solution is stored on the database.

For individuals, this solution is great. For teams that would like to collaborate, it's likely not an ideal option.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities.

I use the tool for mocking, load testing, and developing. I use SoapUI Pro when the downstream is not available and we have to mock the downstream and continue our testing. I also use it to measure our application performance, etc.

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? That kind of definition is not available anywhere. If that level of measurement could be given, that would be really helpful.

Tool-wise, I find no technical limitations as such. It's all as expected. It all depends on how much memory and how much you want to allocate. That's pretty typical for this type of solution.

I suppose the GUI could be slightly improved.

Right now, we don't have a way to capture the JVM stacks either for the virtualization or for the service when using SoapUI Pro for load testing.

I have been using SoapUI Pro for more than a year now.

Scalability-wise, it's okay. On a scale from one to five, scalability-wise, I would give SoapUI Pro a rating of four.

To be honest, I've never had to contact technical support; I just Goggle the answers to any issues I experience. I've never experienced an issue that required their assistance. It's a very simple solution to use.

If it could be sold as a bundle instead of by each individual component, that would be really great for the seller. It would be easy for us to understand what is included with the bundle.

I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SoapUI Pro a rating of eight. If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating. I don't expect a huge level of information, but at least a high level of information.

Overall, I think this solution is very cool and easy-to-use.

We use the product for functional automation and functional validation. We also use it to write our scripts to check performance in certain cases.

The tool’s scalability is very good. It's easy to incorporate functional automation cases. The product is easy to access. A new user would not need to go through much documentation to use the tool. The manual features are easy.

Automation features are not user-friendly.

I have been using the solution for around three years.

The tool is stable. I haven't seen any issues.

The scalability of the product is good. We can increase users and functional cases.

I had a bit of experience, so the automation was not difficult for me. When I was training an individual who was new to ReadyAPI, it was a bit tough for them to understand things. The initial setup is complex for a new user. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten.

Our managers have a point of contact from ReadyAPI who looks into maintenance and other things if we face any issues.

We have SMEs on our team. We rarely reached out to the technical support team of the product. I have never reached out to the support team. I would recommend the solution to any person. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

The solution saves us a ginormous amount of time. We used to write our own solutions, from small scripts to task web services, so this saves us thousands of hours.

ReadyAPI Test is awesome and a huge time-saver. The groovy scripting is the most valuable feature and it gives us the ability to expand the abilities of the tool. 

The UI could be a bit more flexible. 

I have been using this solution for six years or so. 

The solution is very stable. 

This is a scalable solution. There are about six people using it in our company, and we have plans to increase usage in the future. 

I would rate the technical support as a five out of five. 

Previously, we used our homegrown web client. 

If you don't know the structure of web services, it could be complex to set up. 

We definitely see an ROI from this solution. 

ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year. 

This solution is definitely worth the cost. I would rate it as a ten out of ten. 

SoapUI is uncomplicated and user-friendly. 

I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it. 

I've used SoapUI off and on for about three months.

The scalability is okay.

Setting up SoapUI is straightforward. I just downloaded it and started using it. That's the good thing about it. I don't have to go through all those things.

SoapUI is open-source.

I rate SoapUI seven out of 10.

There are many aspects of SoapUI NG Pro that have proved useful at all levels in our organization. From the automatic generation of example requests, to the Form view capabilities that allow for easy manipulation of a request for more basic testing. While the Testsuite capabilities of data driven testing, data generation, use of data sources/sinks, the various assertions that are easily setup automatic validation of your web services and finally the ability to link web services together to mimic your system test scenarios have really helped to improve our test quality and coverage while achieving that all important 'shift testing left'. 

With all of the capabilities the most valuable aspect of SoapUI NG Pro is that it is extremely flexible, you can add any amount of customization which can include the use of the substantial API that is available. With this flexibiltiy you can use this tool not only to test the functionality of the web service, or how that web service is implemented in your system but also to use the automated capabilities of this tool to test out the functionality of aspects of your systems such as calculation engines, letter generation, etc (this is specific to your system but can play a large part in your test strategy if considered) . 

We have used SoapUI Pro, now SoapUI NG pro for around 7 years and in that time we have made use of a lot of the capabilities of this tool. The main benefit this has given us in our organization is really in relation to how we plan our test strategy, it very much a combined effort between Architects, Development and QA. Everyone works towards 'shifting testing left' whether that is to provide mock services to allow for the step up of the test suite/test cases before the code/system is available to test or whether we plan to test our system before it is fully integrated. We very much work towards not only testing the functionality of the web service, or how it is implemented but also how we can use it to setup test data  or to test individual elements of our system before it is fully integrated. For us this has meant increased test coverage, better system security, less test execution time and above all a greater quality product. 

Better integration capabiliites with a range of Test Management Systems (not that it is not possible using the API) where a range of aspects are considered such as housing of the project, sharing (some capabilities here), versioning of projects, automatic saving of run information  and results (again this can be done in test suite setup but would be great to view in a test management system). There are some tools out there that do provide this but it would be ideal if this came as part of SoapUI NG Pro 

We primarily use the solution for automatic testing and API testing.

The solution is extremely flexible.

The API speed is quite good.

The solution offers excellent integration capabilities.

Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better.

The load testing performance needs to be adjusted. It could work much more effectively, in my opinion.

They should work on the pricing of the solution. Right now, we find it to be overly expensive.

I've been using the solution for five years at this point.

The stability isn't actually that great, especially in relation to libraries.

We've been satisfied with the scalability. It's able to expand if we need it to. We're considering increasing our usage as well, so we're looking forward to its capabilities in that respect.

The technical support that we get with the solution is quite good. We've been satisfied with it so far.

The pricing of the solution is quite high. Those who want to use the solution should just be aware that it does come with a bigger price tag.

We're just a customer. We don't have a special relationship with the company in any way.

The solution is quite good. I'd rate it overall an eight on a scale of ten.

I'd recommended it. One of the main things that's great is the excellent integration into the DevOps tool-chain and the reuse of code between SoapUI and LoadUI. 

The primary use case of this solution is for API testing.

The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others. Also, it has direct access support, which doesn't have any competition.

The automation needs improvement. We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs. That is the main section that we use and it needs to improve a lot.

They could include extra trial sessions with the extended license for critical types because they have trial versions that are provided for one month. For corporate companies, it is not enough time to explore and access it and give feedback on whether they are proceeding with it or not. They should include a trial session for at least three months. That would be very good.

In the next release, I would like integration with other tools to support software development, for example, Go! Zilla for defect management, so that I am able to test it, connect it, and trace it back to my requirement and log my defects seamlessly. 

I would like seamless connectivity with other software development tools.

We have been using this solution for a long time now, about four years.

This solution is very stable. We have not had any downtime whatsoever in the last few years that we have been using it.

Since we have been using SoapUI Pro, we have not required technical support because it is an easy-to-use tool. 

There is a lot of support online and it is quite simple and direct.

The initial setup was simple and straightforward. It took a short time to deploy.

The cost is not that bad.

I would recommend this solution. You should proceed and know that communication is very easy to use, and it's user-friendly. 

There is a lot of support online.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.