We performed a comparison between Katalon Studio and Parasoft SOAtest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup of Katalon Studio was easy."
"I rate Katalon Studio's scalability a four out of five."
"Our clients have requested by all types of testing, including mobile, desktop, and API testing and all of those are covered by Katalon. I find that very valuable, very complete."
"Video capture on failure is a must have. A picture is worth a thousand words. A video is worth a thousand pictures (literally)."
"The product provides ease of automation for the cloud."
"It is good for API testing. It is also good for continuous integration testing. You can connect it to Jenkins."
"Smart Wait and XPath healing are valuable features."
"The solution is easy to learn."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"The solution is scalable."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"One improvement would be if it could support more programming languages such as JavaScript or Python. Right now, it is only on Groovy, which I think is not a too popular language."
"Katalon Studio's pricing is expensive."
"It would be helpful if they can integrate a feature for performance testing."
"I can say that in my company, we struggle a lot with iOS automation."
"The price of Katalon Studio is an area of concern where improvement is required."
"Its stability needs improvement."
"The price of the solution is a bit high. It's one of the reasons we decided not to continue using the product."
"The free version of the solution is not user friendly at all."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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 performance could be a bit better."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
Katalon Studio is ranked 5th in API Testing Tools with 41 reviews while Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 9th in API Testing Tools with 30 reviews. Katalon Studio is rated 7.8, while Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Katalon Studio writes "Useful multiple technology platform, scalable, but usability could improve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". Katalon Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Postman, OpenText UFT One, Testim and Appium, whereas Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork. See our Katalon Studio vs. Parasoft SOAtest report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.