We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Polyspace Code Prover based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The solution is scalable."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"The product detects memory corruptions."
"Polyspace Code Prover is a very user-friendly tool."
"The outputs are very reliable."
"When we work on safety modules, it is mandatory to fulfill ISO 26262 compliance. Using Prover helps fulfill the standard on top of many other quality checks, like division by zero, data type casts, and null pointer dereferences."
"Polyspace Code Prover has made me realize it differs from other static code analysis tools because it runs the code. So it's quite distinct in that aspect."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"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."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"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."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"I'd like the data to be taken from any format."
"Using Code Prover on large applications crashes sometimes."
"One of the main disadvantages is the time it takes to initiate the first run."
"Automation could be a challenge."
"The tool has some stability issues."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Polyspace Code Prover is ranked 23rd in Application Security Tools with 5 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Polyspace Code Prover is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Parasoft SOAtest writes "Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Polyspace Code Prover writes "A stable solution for developing software components". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, ReadyAPI and Klocwork, whereas Polyspace Code Prover is most compared with SonarQube, Coverity, Klocwork, CodeSonar and GitLab.
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.