We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Parasoft SOAtest 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."The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution."
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"The reporting features are really good. There's a lot less latency than other solutions."
"The new version of the solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jenkins and the reporting."
"User-friendly and open source."
"Apache JMeter is well-known and widely used among developers, particularly on popular developer forums. While it may not have the most user-friendly interface, it offers strong support through official manuals and various articles from companies providing load testing services. The tool is free, has a substantial community, and serves as a fundamental choice for testers, especially those new to performance testing. While other tools like K6 may be more developer-oriented, JMeter's affordability and accessibility make it suitable for those without extensive performance testing experience."
"Due to process automation, I don't have to prepare reports, making it the perfect solution."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"The solution is scalable."
"The solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"I sometimes found the documentation to be not as explanatory as I would've liked it. In the cases that I can think of, I was looking for a rather hand-holding approach with Step A, B, and C, but then I realized that with a product that is open source like this, you can't do handholding. That is because there are so many different uses and different unique environments and setups for it, but I remember thinking a few times that if they only just said this."
"They should improve the solution on its UI front."
"In future releases, it would be helpful if there was an integration with ALM Octane."
"JMeter should be more stable. Every time there is a new release coming up, a lot of its older functionalities or the new functionalities that are brought in are not very well-documented. It should be documented properly, and there should be proper use cases."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"What needs improvement in Apache JMeter is the very high load requirements when you want to scale it beyond certain thresholds. For example, small to mid-range testing is very easily done with Apache JMeter, but if you scale and increase the load, then it would be a problem because the tool consumes a lot of resources, probably because Apache JMeter provides an enriched UI experience, so it consumes a lot of memory and requires high CPU usage. This means you have to manage your infrastructure, or else you'll have high overhead expenses. As Apache JMeter is a heavyweight tool, that is an area for improvement, though I'm unsure if Apache can do something about it because it could be a result of the way it's architected. What I'd like to see from Apache JMeter in the future is for it to transition to the cloud, as a lot of cloud technologies emerge around the globe, and a lot of people prefer cloud-based solutions or cloud-native tools. Even if a company has a legacy system, it's still possible to transition to the cloud. I've worked with a company that was an on-premise company that moved to the cloud and became cloud-native. If Apache JMeter could transition to the cloud, similar to k6, then it could help lessen the intense resource consumption that's currently happening in Apache JMeter."
"Apache JMeter may have difficulty recognizing dynamic objects in some critical cases, which can lead to challenges in terms of object identification."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"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."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
Apache JMeter is ranked 3rd in API Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 9th in API Testing Tools with 30 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and OpenText UFT Developer. See our Apache JMeter vs. Parasoft SOAtest 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.
