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."What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"The solution is quite stable."
"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 reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"LoadRunner Professional allowed us to load test potential new payroll solutions that would be implemented throughout the entire organization so that we knew which was best suited to performing well under pressure."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"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."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"The solution is scalable."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Support for Microsoft Dynamics needs improvement."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"The pricing model, selling model, and business model need to be adjusted. For non-enterprise organizations, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is too expensive and not worth the cost."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"Instead of having too many graphs and tabs, use the analysis section to get a more simplified defect analysis."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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."
"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."
"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.