We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and ReadyAPI Test 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."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"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 interface is user-friendly."
"The utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."
"ReadyAPI has the power to enrich all the technical work. You can achieve any complex task using ReadyAPI. I can also do UI automation with ReadyAPI. In a few test cases, we want to check the API and the equivalent UI. I download a job and write a piece of Groovy or Java code. It's almost the same in ReadyAPI. I can do that in a single test case. ReadyAPI is a powerful tool because you can do anything you want, but only you need to download the right set of jobs and produce the right set of code."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"The Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"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."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"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."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."
"The UI should be improved."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI Test 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 ReadyAPI Test writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork and Polyspace Code Prover, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, ReadyAPI, Broadcom Service Virtualization, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best API 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.
Hi
I have not done a comparison between these tools. I would go with open source tools if there are any at this point. If you need virtuailization, then select your tool based on that criteria.
I think the last version of neoload (Neoload5) is able to do this. See the NeoLoad 5.0 Technical Publications: www.neotys.com
You may want to try LoadRunner, and particularly LoadRunner's Web Services protocol. It has full support for SOAP, WSDL and other related standards.
It depends on what kind of testing you want to perform,if it is basic webservice testing with less complexity,SOAP UI suits well.SOAP UI has many APIs, which to prepare automation framework .A development experience is required for that to some extent.In Parasoft SOAtest,very less scripting is required as it itself provides a automation framework.Its easy to use and can be used without any training, with the help of user guide.But again scripting is required for complex scenarios based on the project.
www.linkedin.com
In our case the Smart bear products did not pass our security requirements/criteria for a 3rd party load testing vendor.