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

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (3rd), Load Testing Tools (3rd)
Parasoft SOAtest
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (31st), Functional Testing Tools (22nd), API Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (23rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is designed for Performance Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 12.5%, down 15.5% compared to last year.
Parasoft SOAtest, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 0.7% mindshare, down 0.8% since last year.
Performance Testing Tools
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.
Ajit Kumar Rout - PeerSpot reviewer
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:
 

Pros

"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"There are various languages that they allow those programs to be written in, whether you want to use Java or something else."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"The solution can handle a huge amount of workloads, it's quite scalable."
"The reporting mechanism is a valuable feature that generates good reports."
"The implementation was very straightforward and not an issue."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"The reporting is very good in regard to scripting and debugging."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"Every imaginable source in the entire world of information technology can be accessed and used."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"We have seen a return on investment."
 

Cons

"The tool needs to work on capture script feature."
"Sometimes, we aren't able to see an accurate page view while replying and executing the script. When you are navigating the application side by side, it needs to be displayed on a random viewer. Sometimes we will get a few applications, and we won't get others."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"If they can make LoadRunner more comprehensive, it would really help."
"The solution lacks some form of integration."
"I would like to see better-licensing costs."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"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."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"LoadRunner Professional is an expensive product."
"The fee for LoadRunner Professional is very high - about US$500 per user."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"I would still consider LoadRunner as an expensive tool and you get a LoadRunner and the Performance Center."
"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low and ten is a high price, I rate the solution a five."
"For licensing, we pay a lot for it. But the incentive is the support we get with it, that we pay once, and we are set."
"From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."
"It is an expensive product, so think carefully about whether it fits your purposes and is the right tool for you."
"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."
"The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."
"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."
"The price is around $5,000 USD."
"They do have a confusing licensing structure."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
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...
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
SOAtest
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, OpenText and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.