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."Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically 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."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its flexibility, being open source, and it has close to no limits when it comes to integrating with any language, or browser you are using."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"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 performance could be a bit better."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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 Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". 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 OpenText Silk Test. 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.