We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Synopsys Defensics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."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."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We have found multiple issues in our embedded system network protocols, related to buffer overflow. We have reduced some of these issues."
"Whatever the test suit they give, it is intelligent. It will understand the protocol and it will generate the test cases based on the protocol: protocol, message sequence, protocol, message structure... Because of that, we can eliminate a lot of unwanted test cases, so we can execute the tests and complete them very quickly."
"The product is related to US usage with TLS contact fees, i.e. how more data center connections will help lower networking costs."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"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."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Codenomicon Defensics should be more advanced for the testing sector. It should be somewhat easy and flexible to install."
"It does not support the complete protocol stack. There are some IoT protocols that are not supported and new protocols that are not supported."
"Sometimes, when we are testing embedded devices, when we trigger the test cases, the target will crash immediately. It is very difficult for us to identify the root cause of the crash because they do not provide sophisticated tools on the target side. They cover only the client-side application... They do not have diagnostic tools for the target side. Rather, they have them but they are very minimal and not very helpful."
Earn 20 points
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Synopsys Defensics is ranked 5th in Fuzz Testing Tools. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Synopsys Defensics is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Synopsys Defensics writes "Technical support provided protocol-specific documentation to prove that some positives were not false". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork, whereas Synopsys Defensics is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Fortify on Demand, Invicti and HCL AppScan.
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.
