We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Polyspace Code Prover based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"We can automate our scenarios in a data driven format, which shows there is no rework on scripts. We only need to update the test data and run for a number of scenarios."
"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."
"The solution is scalable."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"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."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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."
"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."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"The tool has some stability issues."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"Automation could be a challenge."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Reliable with a good interface but uses too much memory". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork and ReadyAPI, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and GitLab.
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.
