We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and ReadyAPI Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"The solution is scalable."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."
"The solution has some good scanning features."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"ReadyAPI has the power to enrich all the technical work. You can achieve any complex task using ReadyAPI. I can also do UI automation with ReadyAPI. In a few test cases, we want to check the API and the equivalent UI. I download a job and write a piece of Groovy or Java code. It's almost the same in ReadyAPI. I can do that in a single test case. ReadyAPI is a powerful tool because you can do anything you want, but only you need to download the right set of jobs and produce the right set of code."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"I find that I'm fighting with the opportunities to order requests."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"The UI could be a bit more flexible."
"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."
"SoapUI Pro is a little heavy due to the number of features. Previously it was not that heavy. Now the tool is too heavy, they should work on fixing this issue because until your system has lots of resources, you won't be able to use it seamlessly. The performance of the application itself could improve."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. 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 ReadyAPI Test writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, ReadyAPI, Broadcom Service Virtualization, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best API 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.
Hi
I have not done a comparison between these tools. I would go with open source tools if there are any at this point. If you need virtuailization, then select your tool based on that criteria.
I think the last version of neoload (Neoload5) is able to do this. See the NeoLoad 5.0 Technical Publications: www.neotys.com
You may want to try LoadRunner, and particularly LoadRunner's Web Services protocol. It has full support for SOAP, WSDL and other related standards.
It depends on what kind of testing you want to perform,if it is basic webservice testing with less complexity,SOAP UI suits well.SOAP UI has many APIs, which to prepare automation framework .A development experience is required for that to some extent.In Parasoft SOAtest,very less scripting is required as it itself provides a automation framework.Its easy to use and can be used without any training, with the help of user guide.But again scripting is required for complex scenarios based on the project.
www.linkedin.com
In our case the Smart bear products did not pass our security requirements/criteria for a 3rd party load testing vendor.