We performed a comparison between Ixia BreakingPoint and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like that we can test cloud applications."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"Technical support is helpful."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"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."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"The price could be better."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"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."
Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 8 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 30 reviews. Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork. See our Ixia BreakingPoint vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.
