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 reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"I recommend LoadRunner Professional as it supports many protocols and applications and is very easy to set up and use."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"Paramterization and correlation are important features."
"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"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 supports a lot of protocols."
"The most valuable features of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional are scripting and executing the tests."
"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 have seen a return on investment."
"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."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Technical support is helpful."
"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."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"I recently just got to see LoadRunner Developer, but it is still not fully developed to use."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"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."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
"You should be able to use LoadRunner as a single platform. You should be able to have browser based access. You should be able to run enterprise tests."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"In terms of resource management, you need a lot of high capacity boxes if you need to generate a load of 1,000 or 2,000 users."
"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."
"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."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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."
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.