ReadyAPI vs. TestComplete

As stated, we do a LOT of API testing, the swaggerhub import makes it easy to add APIs. This is very well-suited, as well as easy management of the steps/cases/suites inside of ReadyAPI. The one thing I do wish ReadyAPI was better suited for is changes to data, we have a lot of test cases in ReadyAPI and if we make a change to how the backend data is structured, one-by-one adjustments need to be made to the steps. Less appropriate, UI testing.

Incentivized

Best suited to smaller unit test or tests broken up, couple of forms at a time Not suited - larger regressions test involving multiple systems. - my main regression involving payments has been unsuccessful for the last 3 years despite all working fine separately and while being watched

• SoapUI NG Pro is a prefect tool for setting up complicated test cases with many steps including parameterized Web Service requests, response assertions, data generators, data sources, data sinks (report recorders) and more
• You can use Groovy or JavaScript for more complicated automation such as validating the results, extracting data, using external Java libraries or running system processes. Groovy IDE is compatible with Java and you can easily write your code in Java with very few modifications.
• SoapUI enables you to run multiple test suites in parallel or in a loop, and provide user friendly reports including all test case results and test case coverage.
• SoapUI NG Pro lets you to perform security test against your web services with predefined scenarios such as xml bombing, xml injection, sql injection, buffer overflow tests, monkey testing and so on.
• SoapUI NG Pro, offers a simple but practical solution for low to medium load testing scenarios. You can obtain many more Load and Performance testing features by extending your license with purchasing LoadUI Pro.

Incentivized

• TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications.
• TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way.
• Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it.

Incentivized

• REST - They have come a long way, but there could still be improvements here. I find the learning curve much higher and not as straight forward using REST vs SOAP.
• Composite Projects - I'd really like to see them implement something around saving/refreshing Test Suites when using the Composite project ability in Pro. This is currently an enhancement in feature backlog (see their forum for more details). Functionality around Projects and Test Cases seems pretty sound.

• Would love to see TC be a plugin for Visual Studio. Instead of VBScript or JavaScript, to use C# or VB.NET
• Easier to set up with iOS. Android is not bad but iOS seems slow and confusing to get up and running
• Built-in PDF reading support, built in Excel API

Incentivized

I would definitely renew the ReadyAPI as I was pretty happy while using it. But then I switched my job, and the current workplace is using Postman so we are using it for now. Plus, I don't have any issues with Postman. At the end of the day, it about selecting the tool that gets your work done more efficiently.

Incentivized

We have bigger test automation pack using test complete at the same time we also think this is not good performing tool for large number of test automation scripts.

Incentivized

SoapUI allows us to combine multiple tests and adhere
to the sequence that they need to run in order to complete successfully.
It has an excellent GUI design and the reporting mechanism is also very
good. It does consume a lot of memory though during concurrent testing

It is usable when you become accustomed to its quirks. Not using it for two months and then you need to re-learn the quirks for some features (but some quirks are so awful that they will never fade from your memory). So, when using it regularly, it is possible to be quite productive, if no big correction in name mapping is needed.

Incentivized

Soap UI has managed to continuously build on it's solid foundation and keep improving by each release. It is by far the most dependable and accurate testing tool out there of its kind. Available via connecting to VM's created as SoapUI test machines give access to it anytime, anywhere practically.

It has an excellent GUI design and the reporting mechanism is also very
good. It does consume a lot of memory though during concurrent testing.

For my purposes, the provided help features have been sufficient. I am sure I would be better off if I were to spend more time studying the app. For now, I load a project, connect, and execute. It just works.

Incentivized

Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.

Incentivized

no very easy but lacks documentation

If you develop a mobile application and your testing process goes in cloud, probably you will face a problem - how to implement a stable connection between your mobile devices and testing servers

Incentivized

I have not used other API testing products but I am completely satisfied with the functionality and performance of ReadyAPI. It covers all required API protocols and database connections that are used in our organization. It also allows extending the functionality by adding external DB drivers and wiring custom scripts when the native assertion/data manipulation test steps are not sufficient.

Incentivized

TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases directly to speed up the testing process.

Incentivized

It has an excellent GUI design and the reporting mechanism is also very
good. It does consume a lot of memory though during concurrent testing. However, I have read that added monitoring tools have been added, which if so the 7 could possibly go to a 8 or 9.

• We were able to achieve our needs in API test automation with the tool
• In terms ROI, I would say that we have gotten what is basically needed
• Though the initial setup was tough, after that we were able to continue it with user friendly UI and reporting.
• Overall, it had [a] neutral impact in terms [of] ROI.

Incentivized

• Improved product quality overall, since automating tedious tests frees up time and is not prone to fatigue
• When getting started - depending on the complexity of the software/UI tested - it can be a time sink before it brings actual value, and changes to the structure of the UI need to be communicated early, so the changes can be implemented on time to run the automation
• Once set up, the maintenance cost is low, and the automation frees up a lot of resources especially in an agile environment where there are a lot of releases that would need regression tests.

Incentivized