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

Crosscheck Networks SOAPSonar vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Crosscheck Networks SOAPSonar
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
36th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Parasoft SOAtest
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
23rd
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (31st), API Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Crosscheck Networks SOAPSonar is 0.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Use Crosscheck Networks SOAPSonar?
Share your opinion
Ajit Kumar Rout - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 6, 2021
Good API testing and RIT feature; clarity could be improved
In general, this is a hassle free, user friendly tool and it doesn't require much knowledge if you're using the manual testing. Automated testing is also good but requires some knowledge in that field. It has some great features. It's a good tool compared to some of the other paid tools; input and output can be stored before extension and there is also a verification assessment that can be implemented by using some different methodologies inside the tool. If the licensing cost is suitable then I recommend this solution. If you have automation people with in-depth knowledge in coding that will be helpful. I rate this solution a seven out of 10.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The cost of Parasoft seems to have gotten higher with a projection that wasn't really stipulated for our company. They've done a tremendous job at negotiating those deals."
"The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."
"From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."
"The price is around $5,000 USD."
"It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you."
"They do have a confusing licensing structure."
"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."
"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Parasoft SOAtest?
Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports.
What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?
Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings. Going through that is a challenge. It only happens in the initial stage when we are setting up the tool, but it can be imp...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

SOAPSonar
SOAtest
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

San Diego State University, Rumson Capital Advisor, Techlogix
Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, BrowserStack and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.