We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"The solution scales well."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"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."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"There are no bugs or glitches, but a few features available only in the Pro version could be made available in the open-source version. Some of the features do not necessarily need to be only available to Pro users. The data generator would be really useful for the open-source version users."
"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."
"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."
"The cost is not that bad."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 1 review while SoapUI Pro is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 9 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 7.0, while SoapUI Pro 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 SoapUI Pro writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with SonarQube, Postman, Coverity, Tricentis Tosca and ReadyAPI, whereas SoapUI Pro is most compared with ReadyAPI, Postman, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Tosca and Katalon Studio.
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.