Parasoft SOAtest and Ixia BreakingPoint compete in the software testing domain. Parasoft SOAtest has an edge due to its user-friendly attributes and strong support, while Ixia BreakingPoint stands out with its advanced feature set for comprehensive testing.
Features: Parasoft SOAtest is favored for its robust integration capabilities, ease in complex data handling, and user-friendly design. Ixia BreakingPoint excels in simulating diverse network conditions and security threats, offering in-depth analysis, and providing a powerful testing environment with extensive features.
Room for Improvement: Parasoft SOAtest could enhance scalability, improve analytics capabilities, and address strategic issues. Ixia BreakingPoint needs better documentation, more intuitive configuration options, and operational refinements.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Parasoft SOAtest is praised for seamless deployment and helpful customer service, easing setup and support. Ixia BreakingPoint has a steeper learning curve and a complex deployment process, though customer service receives positive feedback.
Pricing and ROI: Parasoft SOAtest is seen as cost-effective with faster ROI due to efficient setup and operation. Ixia BreakingPoint, requiring higher initial investment, is valued for its capabilities and long-term value depending on feature needs and budget.
By simulating real-world legitimate traffic, distributed denial of service (DDoS), exploits, malware, and fuzzing, BreakingPoint validates an organization’s security infrastructure, reduces the risk of network degradation by almost 80%, and increases attack readiness by nearly 70%.
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.
We monitor all Static Application Security Testing (SAST) 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.
