Parasoft SOAtest and Visual Studio Test Professional compete in the API and testing tools market. Parasoft SOAtest appears to have the upper hand in API testing due to its comprehensive support and feature set, while Visual Studio Test Professional excels in integration and development capabilities within the .NET ecosystem.
Features: Parasoft SOAtest shines with comprehensive API support, allowing quick setup of functional test scenarios using WSDL and XSD. It extends capabilities with scripting, data-driven testing, and includes tools like XML assertions and virtualization. Visual Studio Test Professional offers robust unit testing and code analysis features with a rich IDE that includes IntelliSense and debugging support.
Room for Improvement: Parasoft SOAtest requires enhanced reporting and better integration with test management tools, along with improvements in workspace handling and user-friendliness. Visual Studio Test Professional needs an improved pricing structure, performance enhancements, and better integration with external databases to align with modern development practices.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Parasoft SOAtest supports primarily on-premises deployment with some hybrid cloud capabilities, and its customer service is generally rated highly despite some regional challenges. Visual Studio Test Professional offers a wider range of deployment options, including private and public clouds, with customer service that is well-regarded but has extensive setup requirements.
Pricing and ROI: Parasoft SOAtest is noted for being expensive, limiting accessibility for smaller teams but offers high ROI due to automation efficiencies. Visual Studio Test Professional, while also costly, is considered cost-effective given its comprehensive features and the free community edition. The ROI is valued for combining a broad range of development tools into one package.
We found Parasoft SOAtest to be quick in building up test patterns, allowing us to create complex tests efficiently.
Sometimes, the documentation is not readable, being too long or too detailed and not connected to my problem.
It did not support enough of the protocols or cryptography formats we needed, which led us to create our own solutions.
In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices.
The product needs contextual help integrated within its interface.
Sometimes, the library version is not compatible with other libraries, causing errors in my application.
The Git extensions are very basic and can be more extensive compared to other software focused on Git, like GitTower or SmartGit.
Parasoft SOAtest is expensive, but it was acquired because the company was dissatisfied with Quick Test Pro.
The price is expensive.
Parasoft SOAtest is very good at ensuring tests don't pass or fail until they genuinely pass or fail.
Parasoft SOAtest improves the quality of the application, increases security and security compliance, and it is a cost-effective tool.
It supports cross-platform functionality.
Visual Studio Test Professional is highly valuable because it provides extensive extensions and plugins that assist in measuring code quality.
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 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.
