OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

The compared OpenText and Parasoft solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText is ranked #3 in DAST , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 11.3% mindshare in the category. Parasoft is ranked #15 in FT , with an average rating of 8.7, and holds a 2.2% 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

3,765 Views
1,468 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Parasoft SOAtest

Read 33 Parasoft SOAtest reviews

3,772 Views
1,471 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, OpenText and others in Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST).

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

Buyer's Guide

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 889,955 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) (3rd), DevSecOps (7th)

Parasoft SOAtest

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (20th), Functional Testing Tools (15th), API Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (14th)

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 11.3%, up 9.6% compared to last year.
Parasoft SOAtest, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 2.2% mindshare, up 0.7% since last year.

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing	11.3%
Veracode	16.6%
Checkmarx One	15.3%
Other	56.8%

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Parasoft SOAtest	2.2%
Tricentis Tosca	10.8%
OpenText Functional Testing	6.3%
Other	80.7%

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

"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."

"The accuracy of its scans is great."

"Reporting, centralized dashboard, and bird's eye view of all vulnerabilities are the most valuable features."

"The accuracy of its scans is great."

"I've found the centralized dashboard the most valuable. For the management, it helps a lot to have abilities at the central level."

"The most valuable feature is the static analysis."

"The feature that has been most influential in identifying vulnerabilities is its ability to crawl the website, understand the structure, and analyze the network packets sent and received."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to make our customers more secure."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing pros

"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."

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

"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."

"SOAtest is, at its base, a collection of tools that can be combined to generate test scenarios, where input data can be gathered from any possible source from web GUIs, databases, Excel, and files and is used in SOAP/REST tools and web browser tools, and the output of those tests can be saved in files and databases, so every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."

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

"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."

"Utilizing features that support Data Driven testing and E2E has increased efficiencies drastically."

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

More Parasoft SOAtest pros

Cons

"Creating reports is very slow and it is something that should be improved."

"I would like WebInspect's scanning capability to be quicker."

"The initial setup was complex."

"We have had a problem with authentification."

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

"I want to enhance automation. Currently, Fortify WebInspect can scan and find vulnerabilities, but users with specific skills need to interpret the results and understand how to address them."

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

"Fortify WebInspect could improve user-friendliness. Additionally, it is very bulky to use."

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing cons

"Reporting facilities can be better."

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

"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."

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

"More descriptive reports are needed."

"We noticed that our project workspace is sometimes corrupted without any reason."

"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 summary reports could be improved."

More Parasoft SOAtest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

"Fortify WebInspect is a very expensive product."

"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."

"This solution is very expensive."

"The price is okay."

"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%."

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

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

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

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

"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."

"They do have a confusing licensing structure."

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

889,955 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Government

14%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Computer Software Company

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

22%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

University

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 23% of the time

Checkmarx One vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Veracode vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Acunetix vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Invicti vs OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing Competitors

SonarQube vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 7% of the time

Postman Enterprise 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

ReadyAPI vs Parasoft SOAtest

Compared 4% of the time

More Parasoft SOAtest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing

April 2026

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing report

Download OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

Parasoft SOAtest

April 2026

Download Parasoft SOAtest product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus WebInspect, WebInspect

SOAtest

Overview

OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing offers robust scalability, ease of use, and high accuracy in scanning, making it a valuable tool for enterprises.

This security testing platform is known for its centralized dashboard, guided scans, and comprehensive reporting. It integrates seamlessly with tools like Fortify code scanner and supports extensive vulnerability detection and analysis, enhancing efficiency in security management. Despite its strengths, users suggest improvements in cloud integration, cost-effectiveness, and installation processes. Faster scans, reduced false positives, and improved mobile testing features are also desired.

What are the key features of OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing?

Scalability: Easily adapts to changing enterprise needs.
Ease of Use: User-friendly interface with guided scans.
Comprehensive Reporting: Detailed vulnerability analysis and reporting.
Integration Capabilities: Works with Fortify code scanner and user authentication scanning.
Wide Vulnerability Detection: Identifies extensive security vulnerabilities.

What benefits should users expect from reviews?

Efficient Vulnerability Management: Streamlines security management in development environments.
Detailed Analysis: Provides in-depth insights into security issues.
Quick Setup: Easy to deploy within existing systems.
Enterprise Preference: Supports enterprise environments efficiently.

In industries like BFSI, OpenText Dynamic Application Security Testing is employed for performance network application testing, dynamic and static application security testing, and code checks. Security and QA teams use it in development processes to ensure application security prior to release, proving integral in both enterprise and testing environments.

OpenText

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

Aaron's

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

Buyer's Guide

Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST)

March 2026

Download Free Report

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

889,955 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.