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."If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is scalable."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"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."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"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."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
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.