Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
Parasoft SOAtest Logo

Top 10 Parasoft SOAtest Alternatives

Vendor: Parasoft
4.1 out of 5
Leave a review

Top Parasoft SOAtest Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Parasoft SOAtest based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube), Veracode, and Tricentis Tosca. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Parasoft SOAtest surpasses its competitors by offering comprehensive API testing, automated end-to-end testing capabilities, and seamless integration with CI/CD pipelines, enabling efficient testing processes and enhancing software quality with robust service virtualization.

Parasoft Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Parasoft, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube)
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in API test automation and comprehensive end-to-end testing. In comparison, SonarQube Server focuses on code quality and security analysis. A tech buyer might choose SOAtest for automated API testing and SonarQube for maintaining code standards and addressing vulnerabilities.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. SonarQube Server (formerly SonarQube) Report
Parasoft SOAtest presents a straightforward setup cost, while SonarQube Server involves a lower initial financial overhead. These pricing distinctions highlight differing financial commitments for setup between the two solutions.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest presents a straightforward setup cost, while SonarQube Server involves a lower initial financial overhead. These pricing distinctions highlight differing financial commitments for setup between the two solutions.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Veracode
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Veracode
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest offers comprehensive testing capabilities and seamless integration, appealing to organizations seeking extensive testing functions. In comparison, Veracode emphasizes robust security and cloud-based scalability, making it attractive for companies focused on enhancing application security in a flexible digital environment.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. Veracode Report
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher initial setup cost, while Veracode offers a more budget-friendly option. Veracode stands out as a cost-effective choice for companies concerned about upfront expenditures.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher initial setup cost, while Veracode offers a more budget-friendly option. Veracode stands out as a cost-effective choice for companies concerned about upfront expenditures.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Tricentis Tosca
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Tricentis Tosca
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing with extensible integration solutions and robust scripting support. In comparison, Tricentis Tosca offers model-based, scriptless test automation that simplifies test case design and supports diverse UI technologies, making it ideal for non-technical users.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. Tricentis Tosca Report
Parasoft SOAtest's setup cost is generally low, while Tricentis Tosca presents a higher initial expense. The price difference highlights distinct investment levels between these software solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest's setup cost is generally low, while Tricentis Tosca presents a higher initial expense. The price difference highlights distinct investment levels between these software solutions.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Coverity
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Coverity
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in regression testing and API coverage, making it attractive for comprehensive testing capabilities. In comparison, Coverity's strength lies in static code analysis and integration with development workflows, appealing to those seeking in-depth code insights despite higher costs.
Download Coverity vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost than Coverity, but Coverity users find it to be more affordable. Both tools offer unique features, with users highlighting these differences when evaluating setup cost and overall value.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost than Coverity, but Coverity users find it to be more affordable. Both tools offer unique features, with users highlighting these differences when evaluating setup cost and overall value.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
OpenText Core Application Security
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing, offering data-driven testing and broad integration capabilities. In comparison, OpenText Core Application Security specializes in robust application security with effective scans. Parasoft appeals to those prioritizing API functionality, while OpenText suits buyers focused on security enhancement.
Download OpenText Core Application Security vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest requires a substantial initial setup investment, while OpenText Core Application Security offers a more cost-effective setup. The pricing structures reflect significant differences in initial deployment costs, impacting budgeting and financial planning.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest requires a substantial initial setup investment, while OpenText Core Application Security offers a more cost-effective setup. The pricing structures reflect significant differences in initial deployment costs, impacting budgeting and financial planning.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Katalon Studio
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Katalon Studio
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in integration capabilities and is suited for complex enterprise requirements, while Katalon Studio is favored for its intuitive automation features and cost-effectiveness. In comparison, Parasoft SOAtest has robust API testing, whereas Katalon Studio is appreciated for ease of use.
Download Katalon Studio vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher initial setup cost, while Katalon Studio offers a more budget-friendly setup option. The cost difference reflects the varying target audiences and included feature sets of the two tools.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher initial setup cost, while Katalon Studio offers a more budget-friendly setup option. The cost difference reflects the varying target audiences and included feature sets of the two tools.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Apache JMeter
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Apache JMeter
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in protocol support, test automation, and reporting. In comparison, Apache JMeter stands out for scripting capabilities, load testing, and community backing. Apache JMeter has low initial costs, while Parasoft SOAtest delivers higher ROI for those valuing support and extensive features.
Download Apache JMeter vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost, while Apache JMeter offers a lower setup cost, highlighting a significant contrast between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost, while Apache JMeter offers a lower setup cost, highlighting a significant contrast between the two solutions.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
OpenText Functional Testing
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is ideal for diverse environment support and test automation with ALM integration. In comparison, Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing with extensive web service automation, appealing to businesses focusing on backend testing and protocol flexibility.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
OpenText Functional Testing involves a moderate setup cost, while Parasoft SOAtest is known for its higher pricing structure. This significant difference highlights OpenText's more cost-effective approach compared to Parasoft's premium setup.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing involves a moderate setup cost, while Parasoft SOAtest is known for its higher pricing structure. This significant difference highlights OpenText's more cost-effective approach compared to Parasoft's premium setup.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Postman Enterprise
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Postman Enterprise
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest offers robust support for complex, data-driven API tests, making it ideal for enterprise-grade solutions. In comparison, Postman Enterprise's ease of use and flexibility in deployment attract developers seeking a budget-friendly, accessible platform for managing API collections and integrations.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. Postman Enterprise Report
Parasoft SOAtest has higher setup costs, while Postman Enterprise offers a more cost-effective setup option.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has higher setup costs, while Postman Enterprise offers a more cost-effective setup option.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
SmartBear TestComplete
3.8 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing with extensive protocol support. In comparison, SmartBear TestComplete is ideal for multi-platform UI testing and offers flexible pricing. Each tool addresses distinct needs, making them appealing based on specific test requirements and deployment preferences.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. SmartBear TestComplete Report
Parasoft SOAtest involves a substantial setup cost compared to SmartBear TestComplete, which is more cost-effective, highlighting a key pricing distinction between the two testing solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest involves a substantial setup cost compared to SmartBear TestComplete, which is more cost-effective, highlighting a key pricing distinction between the two testing solutions.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Sauce Labs
4.4 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Sauce Labs
4.4 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest offers comprehensive API testing with robust protocol support and data-driven capabilities, making it suitable for complex environments. In comparison, Sauce Labs provides flexible pricing, diverse browser support, real device testing, and cloud deployment, appealing to teams seeking cross-platform compatibility.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. Sauce Labs Report
Parasoft SOAtest offers flexible setup costs, catering to project-specific needs, while Sauce Labs provides a straightforward setup cost plan, emphasizing simplicity.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest offers flexible setup costs, catering to project-specific needs, while Sauce Labs provides a straightforward setup cost plan, emphasizing simplicity.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Klocwork
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Klocwork
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest appeals to organizations prioritizing integration with CI/CD pipelines and automated testing. In comparison, Klocwork is favored for its defect detection and language support. A tech buyer might select Parasoft for deployment ease or Klocwork for analytical features.
Download Klocwork vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest involves an upfront setup cost, while Klocwork's setup also carries an initial expense. Parasoft SOAtest is often noted for its comprehensive setup requirements, contrasting with Klocwork's more streamlined implementation process.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest involves an upfront setup cost, while Klocwork's setup also carries an initial expense. Parasoft SOAtest is often noted for its comprehensive setup requirements, contrasting with Klocwork's more streamlined implementation process.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Selenium HQ
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Selenium HQ
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing with robust data-driven capabilities and extensive validation tools. In comparison, Selenium HQ offers open-source web testing with cross-browser support. Tech buyers might choose Parasoft for comprehensive features or Selenium for cost-effective, flexible solutions.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. Selenium HQ Report
Parasoft SOAtest has higher initial setup costs compared to Selenium HQ, which maintains lower entry expenses, highlighting a key difference in affordability between the two software solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has higher initial setup costs compared to Selenium HQ, which maintains lower entry expenses, highlighting a key difference in affordability between the two software solutions.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
UiPath Test Cloud
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
UiPath Test Cloud
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest offers robust API testing with automation, whereas UiPath Test Cloud emphasizes cross-platform integration and AI capabilities. In comparison, UiPath focuses on robotic process automation, while SOAtest targets comprehensive protocol support and data integration for thorough service testing.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. UiPath Test Cloud Report
Parasoft SOAtest involves substantial setup costs and initial complexity, whereas UiPath Test Cloud offers a simplified setup with lower upfront costs, highlighting a key cost differential and usability distinction between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest involves substantial setup costs and initial complexity, whereas UiPath Test Cloud offers a simplified setup with lower upfront costs, highlighting a key cost differential and usability distinction between the two solutions.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
3.7 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in API testing, supporting various protocols and tools like Event Monitoring, while offering powerful integration capabilities. In comparison, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers facilitates seamless integration in IDEs and supports Java and C#, enhancing developer environments with comprehensive language support.
Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest offers straightforward setup costs, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves more complex configuration expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest offers straightforward setup costs, while OpenText Functional Testing for Developers involves more complex configuration expenses.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
ReadyAPI Test
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
ReadyAPI Test
4.0 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest offers a comprehensive toolset for complex test scenarios and lower cost. In comparison, ReadyAPI Test provides superior functionalities and a feature-rich environment. Parasoft SOAtest excels in automation capabilities, while ReadyAPI Test shines with intuitive design and extensive protocol compatibility.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. ReadyAPI Test Report
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost compared to ReadyAPI Test, reflecting its extensive enterprise capabilities, whereas ReadyAPI Test offers a more budget-friendly setup cost catering to a broader range of users.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost compared to ReadyAPI Test, reflecting its extensive enterprise capabilities, whereas ReadyAPI Test offers a more budget-friendly setup cost catering to a broader range of users.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
ReadyAPI
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
ReadyAPI
3.9 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest offers comprehensive API testing features like detailed validation and robust data-driven support, excelling in functionality. In comparison, ReadyAPI specializes in ease of use with rapid test creation and supports a wide range of API types, ideal for versatile environments.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. ReadyAPI Report
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost than ReadyAPI, making ReadyAPI more economical for initial deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost than ReadyAPI, making ReadyAPI more economical for initial deployment.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
ImmuniWeb
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
ImmuniWeb
4.1 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest excels in test automation and simulation, appealing to those managing complex testing scenarios. In comparison, ImmuniWeb's AI-driven security testing offers comprehensive vulnerability assessment, making it ideal for businesses prioritizing advanced security features. Each tool serves distinct needs in software testing.
Download ImmuniWeb vs. Parasoft SOAtest Report
Parasoft SOAtest has a significant setup cost, while ImmuniWeb offers a more affordable initial setup. The pricing structure highlights a difference in their target markets.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has a significant setup cost, while ImmuniWeb offers a more affordable initial setup. The pricing structure highlights a difference in their target markets.
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
SoapUI
4.2 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest Logo
SoapUI
4.2 out of 5
Parasoft SOAtest offers seamless integration and robust automation, ideal for complex environments. In comparison, SoapUI stands out with plugin support and powerful scripting. Parasoft SOAtest has superior performance and support, while SoapUI's affordability and extensibility can be more appealing for versatile needs.
Download Parasoft SOAtest vs. SoapUI Report
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost, while SoapUI offers a more affordable setup option. SoapUI is budget-friendly for initial deployment, making it cost-effective compared to the more expensive Parasoft SOAtest.
View comparison
Pricing
Parasoft SOAtest has a higher setup cost, while SoapUI offers a more affordable setup option. SoapUI is budget-friendly for initial deployment, making it cost-effective compared to the more expensive Parasoft SOAtest.

Related categories

Functional Testing Tools
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
API Testing Tools