We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and ReadyAPI Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"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."
"SoapUI Pro is a good tool when it comes to API design and orchestration. Additionally, it is beneficial for functional and for performance testing."
"We used to write our own solutions, from small scripts to task web services, so this saves us thousands of hours."
"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"The solution has some good scanning features."
"The solution scales well."
"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"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."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."
"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"SoapUI Pro is a little heavy due to the number of features. Previously it was not that heavy. Now the tool is too heavy, they should work on fixing this issue because until your system has lots of resources, you won't be able to use it seamlessly. The performance of the application itself could improve."
"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI Test writes "You can achieve any complex task with this tool". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, Broadcom Service Virtualization, ReadyAPI, Tricentis Tosca and Apigee. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
Hi
I have not done a comparison between these tools. I would go with open source tools if there are any at this point. If you need virtuailization, then select your tool based on that criteria.
I think the last version of neoload (Neoload5) is able to do this. See the NeoLoad 5.0 Technical Publications: www.neotys.com
You may want to try LoadRunner, and particularly LoadRunner's Web Services protocol. It has full support for SOAP, WSDL and other related standards.
It depends on what kind of testing you want to perform,if it is basic webservice testing with less complexity,SOAP UI suits well.SOAP UI has many APIs, which to prepare automation framework .A development experience is required for that to some extent.In Parasoft SOAtest,very less scripting is required as it itself provides a automation framework.Its easy to use and can be used without any training, with the help of user guide.But again scripting is required for complex scenarios based on the project.
www.linkedin.com
In our case the Smart bear products did not pass our security requirements/criteria for a 3rd party load testing vendor.