We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Polyspace Code Prover based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The solution is scalable."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"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."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"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."
"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 summary reports could be improved."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"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."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. 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 Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork and ReadyAPI, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and GitLab.
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.
