We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Seeker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Sonar, Veracode, Checkmarx and others in Application Security Testing (AST)."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 testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"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."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"A significant advantage of Seeker is that it is an interactive scanner, and we have found it to be much more effective in reducing the amount of false positives than dynamic scanners such as AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify, etc. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"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."
"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."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"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."
"One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 28th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 30 reviews while Seeker is ranked 24th in Application Security Testing (AST) with 1 review. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Seeker is rated 7.0. 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 Seeker writes "More effective than dynamic scanners, but is missing useful learning capabilities". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork, whereas Seeker is most compared with Synopsys API Security Testing, Coverity, Contrast Security Assess, Polaris Software Integrity Platform and SonarQube.
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.
