We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is scalable."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Parasoft SOAtest has an internal refresh function where you can refresh the software to show the changes you’ve made in your projects. Unfortunately this function does not work properly, because it often does not show the changes after you’ve hit te refresh button a few times."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
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.