We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"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."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"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."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"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."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, HCL OneTest, Selenium HQ and Worksoft Certify, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork.
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.
