We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols to perform load testing."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"The front loader and the reporting features are the most valuable aspects of OpenText LoadRunner Professional."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"LoadRunner is a very sophisticated tool, and I can use many languages. For example, I can use Java. I can use C++. I can test the Internet of Things, FTP, mail, and Active Directory. It is very useful."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"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."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"The solution is scalable."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"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."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"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."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 76 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". OpenText LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork.
We monitor all Performance 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.