

Parasoft SOAtest and BrowserStack compete in the testing tools category. Parasoft SOAtest seems to have the upper hand for API and web services testing, while BrowserStack leads in cross-browser testing capabilities.
Features: Parasoft SOAtest provides robust end-to-end testing tools for API and web services, extensive scripting support in multiple languages, and comprehensive regression controls. BrowserStack offers unparalleled device and platform variety, cross-browser compatibility testing, and parallel testing capabilities that include geographical and bandwidth simulation features.
Room for Improvement: Parasoft SOAtest could improve its XML scripting processes, memory management, and make reports more descriptive. BrowserStack users suggest enhancements in connectivity, platform integration, and pricing adjustments to enhance competitiveness.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Parasoft SOAtest supports on-premises and hybrid deployment models with reliable customer support, despite some regional variations. BrowserStack is predominantly cloud-based with flexible deployment options and is generally well-supported, though some issues with connectivity and support responsiveness are noted.
Pricing and ROI: Parasoft SOAtest's high pricing is often seen as justified by its advanced features and ROI, though it could benefit from simpler licensing. BrowserStack, though costly, is considered cost-effective compared to competitors and could benefit from more competitive pricing models.
Pipeline executions that used to take eight hours have been reduced to one hour, enhancing continuous deployment and providing quicker feedback cycles.
I think its biggest benefit is how it integrates with our CI/CD, not necessarily giving access to developers for test devices.
I have seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, specifically a 50% reduction in human capacity.
We found Parasoft SOAtest to be quick in building up test patterns, allowing us to create complex tests efficiently.
Tasks that previously took four or five minutes can now be completed in 20 to 30 seconds with the help of the tool.
BrowserStack customer support is excellent, with knowledgeable staff assisting throughout onboarding, setup, and understanding our needs to provide tailored solutions.
BrowserStack's scalability is enhanced by its auto-scaling capabilities on AWS.
They reproduce the same scenario, and then we create the bug ticket for them to fix.
BrowserStack is quite stable for me because it offers many different devices, is always up to date, and has a nice user interface with good user experience.
Sometimes there is slowness in the network, especially when working with AWS-based hosting.
In particular use cases with numerous steps, it experiences crashes.
BrowserStack is very expensive and they keep increasing their cost, which is absolutely ridiculous, especially when someone like LambdaTest is coming through for literal thousands of dollars less, with the same services.
Going forward, one way BrowserStack could improve is by incorporating AI concepts to create tests automatically from provided URLs or user intentions, generating scripts without needing users to write automation scripts.
I think false positives are an area where BrowserStack can improve, as I have often seen things working fine on actual devices, but on BrowserStack devices, issues arise due to network slowness or AWS region connectivity problems that cause lag.
It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions.
One improvement would be to integrate it with modern technologies such as AI, so we can generate test cases by providing the details so that it can generate the structure, and later the person working can modify and enhance it.
In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices.
pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month.
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro.
The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack. We get to run our automation against their full suite of devices, which alleviates the uplift of manual testing.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by helping us reduce the human capacity by 50%, with that reduction mostly being in manual testing efforts.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization primarily through time savings because it is very easy to use and replicates physical devices for testing, which is crucial since we usually do not have physical devices.
Parasoft SOAtest is very good at ensuring tests don't pass or fail until they genuinely pass or fail.
Parasoft SOAtest improves the quality of the application, increases security and security compliance, and it is a cost-effective tool.
The best feature of Parasoft SOAtest is the extension tool where we can write our custom scripts.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| BrowserStack | 8.1% |
| Parasoft SOAtest | 1.7% |
| Other | 90.2% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 10 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 14 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 9 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 3 |
| Large Enterprise | 23 |
BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.
Parasoft SOAtest delivers fully integrated API and web service testing capabilities that automate end-to-end functional API testing. Streamline automated testing with advanced codeless test creation for applications with multiple interfaces (REST & SOAP APIs, microservices, databases, and more).
SOAtest reduces the risk of security breaches and performance outages by transforming functional testing artifacts into security and load equivalents. Such reuse, along with continuous monitoring of APIs for change, allows faster and more efficient testing.
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.