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."Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"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."
"The load testing, reporting, and scripting features are all valuable features."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"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."
"The Analysis feature makes it easy to analyze cross-data and we can pin to the focus period."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The solution is scalable."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"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."
"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 solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to 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."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"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."
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.