CrossBrowserTesting vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

SmartBear and Parasoft are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #27, while Parasoft is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.7. SmartBear holds a 1.3% mindshare in FT, compared to Parasoft’s 1.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of Parasoft users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

727 Views
625 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Parasoft SOAtest

Read 33 Parasoft SOAtest reviews

2,343 Views
703 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Parasoft SOAtest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Parasoft SOAtest and CrossBrowserTesting compete in software testing. Parasoft SOAtest has a stronger appeal due to its comprehensive testing capabilities, while CrossBrowserTesting is preferred for its extensive cross-browser coverage.

Features: Parasoft SOAtest offers automated API testing, providing deep analysis and security testing abilities. It supports multiple languages and protocols including JSON, allowing for customizable scripting and data-driven testing. CrossBrowserTesting excels in cross-browser testing functionality and provides real devices for testing alongside capabilities like live testing and screenshots.

Room for Improvement: Parasoft SOAtest could enhance user interface design, simplify integration with other tools, and offer more competitive pricing. CrossBrowserTesting could improve the speed of starting new sessions, expand device selection, and provide more comprehensive support for mobile testing environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Parasoft SOAtest has a structured deployment process with dedicated customer support channels. CrossBrowserTesting offers flexible cloud-based deployment, providing more accessibility for diverse teams.

Pricing and ROI: Parasoft SOAtest involves a higher initial setup cost but offers substantial ROI in API-focused scenarios. CrossBrowserTesting offers a cost-effective entry point with a high ROI through efficient cross-browser coverage.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Parasoft SOAtest

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

27th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Parasoft SOAtest

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

16th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (20th), API Testing Tools (10th), Test Automation Tools (15th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 1.7%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Parasoft SOAtest	1.7%
CrossBrowserTesting	1.3%
Other	97.0%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

CharlesNetshivhera

Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable

We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…

Read full review

reviewer2772063

Quality Specialist 2A at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

Has reduced manual testing effort with customization options but occasionally crashes during complex executions

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. We can add more customized tools, and reporting can be enhanced. Currently, the reporting part is at a step level, and it does not give details for a particular test case, so improvements in those areas would be beneficial. There are performance issues where the tool crashes sometimes. In particular use cases with numerous steps, it experiences crashes. I have encountered stability and performance issues with it.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."

"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."

"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."

"It was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"One of the most valuable features I found in Parasoft SOAtest is its ability to extend the product."

"Technical support is helpful."

"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."

"Parasoft SOAtest improves the quality of the application, increases security and security compliance, and it is a cost-effective tool."

"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."

"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."

"We have seen a return on investment."

"Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."

More Parasoft SOAtest pros

Cons

"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"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."

"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."

"In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices."

"One area that could use improvement is the cryptography capabilities in Parasoft SOAtest. It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions."

"Reporting facilities can be better."

"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."

"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."

More Parasoft SOAtest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."

"From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."

"The price is around $5,000 USD."

"The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."

"The cost of Parasoft seems to have gotten higher with a projection that wasn't really stipulated for our company. They've done a tremendous job at negotiating those deals."

"It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you."

"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."

"They do have a confusing licensing structure."

"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Performing Arts

Government

University

Financial Services Firm

20%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

10%

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	23

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Parasoft SOAtest?

I am not involved in the pricing aspect, setup cost, or licensing cost of Parasoft SOAtest. Our dedicated tools and support teams handle those aspects.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Parasoft SOAtest?

We use Parasoft SOAtest for API testing and service virtualization with responder setup. Service virtualization is very helpful in our testing. When any downstream system is not available or we are...

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 31% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 9% of the time

LambdaTest vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 8% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 7% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

SonarQube vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 13% of the time

Postman Enterprise vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 12% of the time

Coverity Static vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 7% of the time

Polyspace Code Prover vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 6% of the time

More Parasoft SOAtest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

January 2026

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Parasoft SOAtest

January 2026

Download Parasoft SOAtest product report

Also Known As

No data available

SOAtest

Overview

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.

SmartBear

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.

Parasoft

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Parasoft SOAtest

December 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Parasoft SOAtest

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Parasoft SOAtest and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Parasoft SOAtest 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.