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."It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"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."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"I think that analytics is very good and that the analytics features are very powerful."
"The stability of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional is very high. It is the leading tool for stability."
"We don't find any features lacking. One of the most beneficial points we have from LoadRunner is we start sizing our infrastructure accordingly. So what we do is when we deploy a new workload, we do performance testing."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"The solution is scalable."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The monitoring technology in LoadRunner could be improved. It depends on another tool called SiteScope, but they only took a part of the features of SiteScope. They need to improve on that."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"Sometimes we are not be able to click on some of the buttons due to the screen mismatching and compatibility issues."
"The only scenario we see a complexity is when we have single-page applications where JavaScript is talking to the server and coming back. That's the only scenario where we find some difficulties."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"We are going to continue to use the product in the future, I recommend this product. However, those who are looking for only REST-based on the API, I would recommend some other tool because of the cost. There are others available on the market."
"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."
"Parasoft SOAtest has an internal refresh function where you can refresh the software to show the changes you’ve made in your projects. Unfortunately this function does not work properly, because it often does not show the changes after you’ve hit te refresh button a few times."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
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.