We performed a comparison between Ixia BreakingPoint and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Testing (AST) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The DDoS testing module is useful and quick to use."
"The solution has many protocols and options, making it very flexible."
"It is a scalable solution."
"We use Ixia BreakingPoint for Layer 7 traffic generation. That's what we like."
"I like that we can test cloud applications."
"There is a virtual version of the product which is scaled to 100s of virtual testing blades."
"The most valuable feature of Ixia BreakingPoint is the ransomware and malware database for simulated attacks."
"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."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"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 have seen a return on investment."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The solution is scalable."
"I would appreciate some preconfigured network neighborhoods, which are predefined settings for testing networks."
"The quality of the traffic generation could be improved with Ixia BreakingPoint, i.e. to get closer to being accurate in what a real user will do."
"They should improve UI mode packages for the users."
"The production traffic simulations are not realistic enough for some types of DDoS attacks."
"The price could be better."
"The solution originally was hard to configure; I'm not sure if they've updated this to make it simpler, but if not, it's something that could be streamlined."
"The integration could improve in Ixia BreakingPoint."
"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."
"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."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
Ixia BreakingPoint is ranked 23rd in Application Security Testing (AST) with 8 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 30 reviews. Ixia BreakingPoint is rated 8.4, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Ixia BreakingPoint writes "Works better for testing traffic, mix profile, and enrollment scenarios than other solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". Ixia BreakingPoint is most compared with Spirent CyberFlood and Synopsys Defensics, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork. See our Ixia BreakingPoint vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best Application Security Testing (AST) vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Testing (AST) 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.