We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and ReadyAPI Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is scalable."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"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."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"SoapUI is uncomplicated and user-friendly."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"SoapUI Pro is a little heavy due to the number of features. Previously it was not that heavy. Now the tool is too heavy, they should work on fixing this issue because until your system has lots of resources, you won't be able to use it seamlessly. The performance of the application itself could improve."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."
"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."
"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."
"I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it."
"I find that I'm fighting with the opportunities to order requests."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while ReadyAPI Test is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 31 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI Test is rated 8.0. 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 ReadyAPI Test writes "You can achieve any complex task with this tool". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork, whereas ReadyAPI Test is most compared with Postman, Broadcom Service Virtualization, ReadyAPI, Tricentis Tosca and Apigee. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. ReadyAPI Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best API Testing Tools vendors.
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.
Hi
I have not done a comparison between these tools. I would go with open source tools if there are any at this point. If you need virtuailization, then select your tool based on that criteria.
I think the last version of neoload (Neoload5) is able to do this. See the NeoLoad 5.0 Technical Publications: www.neotys.com
You may want to try LoadRunner, and particularly LoadRunner's Web Services protocol. It has full support for SOAP, WSDL and other related standards.
It depends on what kind of testing you want to perform,if it is basic webservice testing with less complexity,SOAP UI suits well.SOAP UI has many APIs, which to prepare automation framework .A development experience is required for that to some extent.In Parasoft SOAtest,very less scripting is required as it itself provides a automation framework.Its easy to use and can be used without any training, with the help of user guide.But again scripting is required for complex scenarios based on the project.
www.linkedin.com
In our case the Smart bear products did not pass our security requirements/criteria for a 3rd party load testing vendor.