We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Tricentis Tosca 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."Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Technical support is helpful."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"To me, what stands out the most about Tricentis Tosca is that even if I'm not a technical tester, I could pick up on how to use it very quickly because of the mechanisms of the tool, for example, its scanning mechanism. I'm not so technical, but I'm able to maneuver through Tricentis Tosca and derive capability. It's a user-friendly tool. It's not very complex."
"The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people."
"Tricentis Tosca is well integrated with other products like Jira."
"It can provide all levels of testing from design to execution to reporting."
"I am impressed with the product's script test."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"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."
"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."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"The solution is expensive."
"Tricentis Tosca could improve on the ease of use. There is a steep learning curve. The reporting section could be better and some of the new features could be simplified. Additionally, the user management of the client and the server are confusing. There should not be two."
"Their license management should be improved. One of our customers is a global customer. They want to use one licensed server and then split the licenses based on the different users of the different business units, but currently, there is only one license server that everybody can access. There is no control, and that's why sometimes congestion can happen."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"The source controls that are in Tricentis Tosca have some problems. For example, if you use Selenium or use Java-based application, it's easy to match code from two developers. However, if you're a developer and going to look at Tricentis Tosca, it's very difficult to use the source control measure."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"One thing to improve in Tricentis Tosca is that it's not compatible with Excel based forms. Another area for improvement is that the tool is not compatible with OpenText applications. The support and licensing cost for it also need improvement. The tool also needs cloud support, as it's currently on-premises only."
"ScratchBook execution needs to be improved as Tosca crashes multiple times."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Fortify on Demand, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best API Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.