We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest and ReadyAPI 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."Generating new messages, based on the existing .EDN and .XML messages, is a crucial part or the testing project that I’m currently in."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"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."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"The solution is scalable."
"It can create stress tests very fast, and some features help you do it fast."
"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"ReadyAPI's best features are user-friendliness, smooth integration with Postman, the speed of creating test cases, and integration with customer data."
"It's easy to learn how to use it."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"UI testing should be more in-depth."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"The feedback that we received from the DevOps of our organization was that the tool was a little heavy from the transformation perspective."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"It doesn't have connectors to the NoSQL database. This is one of the things where they do not have a very solid strategy today. Other solutions have an in-built mechanism where I can directly and easily connect. An API is more around a user submitting a request on the frontend. It then hits the backend, puts the data, and responds back. If I am hitting MongoDB or NoSQL databases, I do not have ready-made inbuilt solutions in ReadyAPI that can easily help me in automating it faster. In our organization, we deal with NoSQL databases, and therefore, we need Groovy. We just cannot have a connector from ReadyAPI to do that. I have to write Groovy scripts. If you have themes that are predominantly using MongoDB, it leads to more maintenance and support activity because we are introducing more code into our commission. In terms of additional features, it can have cloud support. This is one of the things where we are getting into cloud support. We'll see how it works, but it is one of the doubts that we still have."
"ReadyAPI can improve because it is limited to only SOAP and REST services. They should update the solution to include more protocols so that other people are not limited to SOAP and REST services. Other than would be able to utilize it."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
"The initial setup could be less complex."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 30 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 8.2, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. 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 ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with Postman, SonarQube, Coverity, Polyspace Code Prover and Klocwork, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and Tricentis NeoLoad. See our Parasoft SOAtest vs. ReadyAPI 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.
