We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Selenium HQ 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."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."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"I like its simplicity."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"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."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"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."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"There are some synchronization issues"
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional 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.