We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and Selenium HQ 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."They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"The solution is scalable."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"I like its simplicity."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"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."
"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 product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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 Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA). See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional 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.