OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

Why PeerSpot?

The compared OpenText and Parasoft solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText is ranked #4 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 11.2% mindshare in the category. Parasoft is ranked #11 in FT , with an average rating of 8.7, and holds a 2.8% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of Parasoft users who would recommend it.

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Read 22 OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing reviews

8,324 Views
3,246 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Parasoft SOAtest

Read 33 Parasoft SOAtest reviews

8,004 Views
4,002 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Parasoft SOAtest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Checkmarx, Rapid7 and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST).

To learn more, read our detailed Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Report (Updated: October 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

October 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 920,929 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

OpenText Dynamic Applicatio...

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (4th), DevSecOps (9th)

Parasoft SOAtest

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (26th), Functional Testing Tools (11th), API Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (15th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is designed for Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) and holds a mindshare of 11.2%, up 11.2% compared to last year.
Parasoft SOAtest, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 2.8% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	11.2%
Checkmarx One	13.7%
Veracode	13.2%
Other	61.900000000000006%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Parasoft SOAtest	2.8%
Tricentis Tosca	9.2%
OpenText Functional Testing	8.7%
Other	79.3%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ArnabPaul

Cyber Security Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enhancements in manual testing align with reporting and integration features

WebInspect works efficiently with Java-based or .NET based applications. However, it struggles with Salesforce applications, where it requires approximately 20-24 hours to crawl and audit but produces minimal findings, necessitating manual verification. The solution offers customization features for crawling and vulnerability detection. It includes various security frameworks and allows selection of specific vulnerability types to audit, such as OWASP Top 10 or JavaScript-based vulnerabilities. When working with APIs, we can select OWASP API Top 10. The tool also supports custom audit features by combining different security frameworks. For on-premises deployment, the setup is complex, particularly regarding SQL server configuration. Unlike Burp Suite or OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing, which have simpler setup processes, WebInspect requires SQL server setup to function.

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

"With it, you get a centralized board, you have a management view, enroll management and access management, everything is there."

"It's a well-known platform for doing dynamic application scanning."

"The solution's technical support was very helpful."

"The FPA and Audit Workbench are very helpful for me, and when we are integrating it with SSC, we're able to scan and trace and see all of the vulnerabilities, with very detailed examples for each vulnerability, so it is very good for users and beginners and doesn't take a lot of time to understand the tool."

"It is scalable and very easy to use."

"The most valuable feature is the performance."

"Good at scanning and finding vulnerabilities."

"The accuracy of its scans is great."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

"It improved my project ROI in various portions of the testing life cycle."

"It has allowed us to build a large library of repeatable automated tests that are able to be quickly executed on demand."

"As an expert user, you can accomplish a lot with this tool."

"We can now test as early as possible, so we are achieving better control over our components."

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

"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."

"It provides easy handling of RESTful APIs and figuring out exact API scalability, responses, and failed APIs, returning code captured by the fault injections."

More Parasoft SOAtest pros

Cons

"Fortify WebInspect's shortcoming stems from the fact that it is a very expensive product in Korea, which makes it difficult for its potential customers to introduce the product in their IT environment."

"The installation could be a bit easier. Usually it's simple to use, but the installation is painful and a bit laborious and complex."

"Lately, we've seen more false negatives."

"One thing I would like to see them introduce is a cloud-based platform."

"There are some file extensions, like .SER, that Fortify WebInspect doesn't scan."

"The solution is on the expensive side. It's something that clients comment on."

"It requires improvement in terms of scanning. The application scan heavily utilizes the resources of an on-premise server. 32 GB RAM is very high for an enterprise web application."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

"In general, its user-friendliness needs a little improvement since there are a few bugs that still remain."

"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."

"We have good support of our solution architect of Parasoft, but sometimes they don’t know all the answers and then it’s harder to find more knowledge in technical support from US teams, which slows things down."

"Work file [tst] gradually increases in size due to saving or updates of workspace. I can see a major improvement in that."

"The summary reports could be improved."

"The user-interface is not very lightweight or friendly, sometimes buggy and cumbersome."

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

"Yes, there were few issues, that caused the Memory out, but was resolved."

More Parasoft SOAtest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is very expensive."

"It’s a fair price for the solution."

"Our licensing is such that you can only run one scan at a time, which is inconvenient."

"Its price is almost similar to the price of AppScan. Both of them are very costly. Its price could be reduced because it can be very costly for unlimited IT scans, etc. I'm not sure, but it can go up to $40,000 to $50,000 or more than that."

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"The pricing is not clear and while it is not high, it is difficult to understand."

"The price is okay."

"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."

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

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

"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."

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

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

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Government

10%

Outsourcing Company

10%

Healthcare Company

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Construction Company

10%

Outsourcing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	15

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

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortify WebInspect?

While I am not directly involved with licensing, I can share that our project's license for 1-9 applications costs between $15,000 to $19,000. In comparison, Burp Suite costs approximately $500 to ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Fortify WebInspect?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Fortify WebInspect?

I am currently working with several tools. For Fortify, I use SCA and WebInspect. Apart from that, I use Burp Suite from PortSwigger. For API testing, I use Postman with Burp Suite or WebInspect fo...

See all answers

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

PortSwigger Burp Suite Professional vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 36% of the time

Invicti Web + API vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Check Point WAF (formerly CloudGuard WAF) vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

SonarQube vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 6% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 5% of the time

ReadyAPI Test vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 5% of the time

Postman Enterprise vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 4% of the time

More Parasoft SOAtest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

October 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Parasoft SOAtest

October 2026

Download Parasoft SOAtest product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

SOAtest

Overview

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers scalable, easy-to-use solutions for detecting vulnerabilities across web applications. Its features support user authentication, extensive reporting, and seamless integration with code scanners, making it a comprehensive tool for security analysis.

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is a robust tool tailored for web application security. It features accurate vulnerability detection, a centralized dashboard, and capabilities for API testing and session management. Integration with Fortify enhances its performance, while support for web security testing includes crawling and auditing. However, some users find it resource-heavy with slow scanning processes and issues with authentication and Salesforce applications. The tool's high cost and licensing complexities have limited its reach in markets like Korea. Despite this, it remains a useful option for security and QA teams focused on identifying vulnerabilities in a range of environments, including Salesforce and Java-based applications.

What are the key features?

Scalability and ease of use: Supports a wide range of environments.
Accurate vulnerability detection: Offers comprehensive scans.
User authentication support: Enhances security procedures.
Comprehensive reporting: Provides detailed insights.
Centralized dashboard: Facilitates streamlined management.
API testing capabilities: Conducts thorough reviews of API security.
Session management: Offers advanced session tracking.
Integration with Fortify: Boosts scanning efficiency.
Support for web application security testing: Includes effective crawling and auditing.

What benefits should users look for?

Enhanced security: Identifies a broad spectrum of vulnerabilities.
Time-saving: Simplifies complex security testing processes.
Improved compliance: Aids in meeting industry standards.
Performance boost: Integration minimizes scanning time and errors.

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is implemented in environments requiring robust security measures, especially in sectors using web, Salesforce, Java-based, and .NET applications. It aids teams in secure form processing and verification on designated portals, utilizing code scanning and API testing for thorough analysis.

OpenText

Parasoft SOAtest is a robust tool for automating test scenarios, supporting a range of interfaces and protocols, making it ideal for comprehensive service testing. Its adaptability in complex environments provides extensive testing capabilities for UI and API automation.

Parasoft SOAtest offers a comprehensive suite of features designed for the efficient setup of functional tests, emphasizing ease in data-driven scenarios and thorough automation. Supporting key protocols like SOAP and REST, alongside UI recording, it integrates seamlessly with Jenkins and GitHub, adding service virtualization for enhanced end-to-end testing. Users benefit from its extensibility through custom scripts, allowing broad API and web service testing. However, there are challenges in user-friendliness, with the graphical interface requiring improvements. Reporting features need enhanced clarity and customization options. Limited cryptography support and documentation necessitate improvement. Performance issues and high pricing are noted drawbacks, but its use in banking and quality enhancement demonstrates significant potential.

What are the key features of Parasoft SOAtest?

Rapid functional test setup: Streamlines the creation of test scenarios efficiently.
Data-driven testing: Enables easy configuration with different datasets.
Extensive automation: Facilitates comprehensive testing for APIs and UIs.
Protocol support: Integrates SOAP, REST, JSON, SAP RFC functionalities.
Service virtualization: Enhances testing across complex system architectures.

What benefits and ROI should users expect?

Improved testing efficiency: Reduces manual testing efforts significantly.
Enhanced quality assurance: Elevates application reliability and performance.
Integration capabilities: Coordinates well with Jenkins and GitHub for streamlined processes.
Comprehensive testing: Provides thorough coverage for APIs and web services.

Implementing Parasoft SOAtest in industries like banking allows automation of regression tests for web services in SOA architectures, supporting protocols such as ISO 8583. Companies use it to transition from manual testing to automation, integrating JSON and XML, facilitating improved application quality.

Parasoft

Sample Customers

Aaron's

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

Buyer's Guide

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

October 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Veracode, Checkmarx, Rapid7 and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST). Updated: October 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) 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.