We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Tricentis Tosca 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."Technical support is helpful."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"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."
"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."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people."
"I am impressed with the product's script test."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"The use of automation is most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is the Tosca Commander. Functionality is another thing I find most valuable in the solution."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are the Salesforce scanning. There are two scanning for Salesforce applications. There is Salesforce scanning and normal application scanning. Object identification has been really useful in Tricentis Tosca."
"What I find valuable is that Tricentis is always refining the test methodology. They listen to feedback from the analysts about what the testing tool should do, and then Tricentis always implements it. So all the necessary testing functions are already implemented in their tools."
"Tricentis Tosca is well integrated with other products like Jira."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"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."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Security, UI, and basic performance improvements could be done to the product to enhance its use."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
"Tricentis Tosca could improve on the ease of use. There is a steep learning curve. The reporting section could be better and some of the new features could be simplified. Additionally, the user management of the client and the server are confusing. There should not be two."
"Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation."
"With regard to areas of improvement, report customization should be easier. It would be good if Tosca could provide standard reports for at least 20 variants. At present, there are only three to four variants. The mobile engine needs to be faster and easier to use; it is a bit cumbersome. Also, the object identification in the mobile engine needs improvement. I would like to see easy-to-use customizations for reports in the next release."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. 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 Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Fortify on Demand, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best API Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.