We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Postman based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We have seen a return on investment."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"I like that it is very easy to use. I also like the automation feature."
"Postman is open-source and free to use."
"The tool is simple and easy."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Collections."
"The most valuable feature of Postman is the verification and testing of APIs."
"Postman is useful for API testing."
"Simple to use and you can easily store your projects."
"We are using the automation and performance testing tools."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Multi-part requests should be handled in the octet-stream."
"Version management could be simplified."
"I would like to have a code snippet where I can write a code and for the responses of the endpoints to be validated using my custom business conditions."
"If you have knowledge of JavaScript, the initial setup is easy and straightforward. If not, it may take some time to learn about JavaScript before starting the implementation."
"We do the implementation of Postman and give support. We had to use two engineers for the implementation, one senior and one junior for the process."
"It should be able to check the records and compare them to the regression testing more on the automation side."
"We'd like to see some better UI in newer versions."
"The request encryption could be one thing on which they can work a little bit. If we don't want to expose our production data but we still want to test our APIs on the production data, there should be a way to do that. It is not only with Postman. I think no tool in the market is doing that right now."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 9th in API Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Postman is ranked 1st in API Testing Tools with 52 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Postman 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 Postman writes "Reliable and easy to expand with a helpful API network". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover, Klocwork and ReadyAPI, whereas Postman is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and OpenText UFT One. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. Postman report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.
