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."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."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"The solution is scalable."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The solution scales well."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"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."
"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 utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"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."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"The UI should be improved."
"I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"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."
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 "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". 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.