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."We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"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."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"The solution is scalable."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"I like its simplicity."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"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."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"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."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"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."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
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 Automation Anywhere (AA). 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.