We performed a comparison between Apigee 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 following features are most valuable: API Management, Analytics, Quota, and the Developer Portal."
"I like implementing different policies, for example, rate-limiting policy."
"It has all the features necessary to work in anything from a basic scenario to advanced applications."
"One of the best parts of this solution is the implementation as we did not need to use code or out-of-box policies. When it comes to the cloud-based architecture, there is a high level of reliability."
"It is easy to set up. It is on Google Platform, and there are multiple deployment models they support, which is great."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"Technical support has been decent."
"Apigee is relatively easy to use for developers."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The solution is scalable."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Development IDE, especially for Architect Review."
"The technical support could be improved because their response time is slow."
"Integration should be improved."
"Apigee is more of an entry level solution that does basic things pretty well, but if you want to go more customizable, you want to really look for another solution."
"The company needs to better support webhooks. It used to support webhooks and their policies and they have since stopped. They had some issues in the product and they abandoned the support for them. It's not come back since."
"The initial setup is not straightforward, particularly for hybrid solutions."
"What my clients don't like is that the on-premises solution is not being treated and maintained as well as the cloud solution."
"Apigee is demanding on the infrastructure so the setup cost is very high for an on-premises deployment."
"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."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
Apigee is ranked 6th in API Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 9th in API Testing Tools with 30 reviews. Apigee is rated 8.2, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Apigee writes "Has a robust community and outstanding performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". Apigee is most compared with Microsoft Azure API Management, IBM API Connect, Amazon API Gateway, WSO2 API Manager and Layer7 API Management, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork. See our Apigee 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.
