CrossBrowserTesting vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

SmartBear and Parasoft are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while Parasoft is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to Parasoft’s 0.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 92% of Parasoft users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Parasoft SOAtest

Read 31 Parasoft SOAtest reviews

540 Views
336 Comparison Views

92% 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: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Parasoft SOAtest

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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

28th

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

20th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (28th), API Testing Tools (11th), Test Automation Tools (21st)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 0.7%, down from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

Read full review

Ajit Kumar Rout

Sr Quality Assurance Engineer at Wabtec Industrial

Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved

In general, this is a hassle free, user friendly tool and it doesn't require much knowledge if you're using the manual testing. Automated testing is also good but requires some knowledge in that field. It has some great features. It's a good tool compared to some of the other paid tools; input and output can be stored before extension and there is also a verification assessment that can be implemented by using some different methodologies inside the tool. If the licensing cost is suitable then I recommend this solution. If you have automation people with in-depth knowledge in coding that will be helpful. I rate this solution a seven out of 10.

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

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

"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."

"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."

"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."

"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

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

"The solution is scalable."

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

"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."

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

"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."

"Technical support is helpful."

"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."

More Parasoft SOAtest pros

Cons

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"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."

"Reporting facilities can be better."

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

"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."

"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."

"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."

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

"UI testing should be more in-depth."

More Parasoft SOAtest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

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

"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."

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

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

"They do have a confusing licensing structure."

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

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

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

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

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

"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."

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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

27%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

Real Estate/Law Firm

Financial Services Firm

24%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Parasoft SOAtest?

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

See all answers

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

Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro. The new management does not want subscription tools around, aiming for scripted tests us...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?

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 ow...

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 69% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 23% of the time

Postman vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 21% of the time

Coverity vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 13% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 8% of the time

ReadyAPI vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 8% of the time

More Parasoft SOAtest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Parasoft SOAtest

April 2025

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

April 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Parasoft SOAtest

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 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.