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

Parasoft SOAtest vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Parasoft SOAtest
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
21st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (31st), API Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (23rd)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 0.8%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.3%, down from 5.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Ujjwal Gupta - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to use and understand with multiple types of testing on offer
It is very easy to understand. We can do a lot with it. Since this is a commercial tool, we can have more functionality in place. It covers more things like ADI and APIs, et cetera. Everything is in one place, right there, so you don't need to go anywhere. With one single tool, you have everything you need. You can even test the UI as well. The initial setup is very easy. There is nice functionality under the Service Virtualization feature. The solution is stable. Technical support is helpful. This product easily scales. Parasoft actually provides very extensive coverage. For example, in SAP applications, we have various EDIs, and integrated development. That also is supported by Parasoft. In the market, we don't have many of the tools there to test those things. It's nice to be able to with this product.
Abhishek-Tiwari - PeerSpot reviewer
An open-source solution that has significantly reduced costs for the company
One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing. For example, if there is a webpage where we need to upload some documents or emails in the webpage and I want to automate that scenario with the help of Selenium, it will not be possible. I can not upload any documents because when I am clicking on the browser the Windows pop up will appear. It would be beneficial if Selenium HQ would develop integrated plugins, and inbuilt features, which would help us to automate Windows based applications. With the help of other third party plugins, like AutoIt, Robot Class, or Sikuli we can integrate Windows based applications. Another limitation of Selenium HQ is that we can not automate the capture part. EML processing is not available in Selenium, particularly if a website requires some capture kind of validations before logging into the application. To overcome this situation, we can disable the capture part from the application side, so we can get access to the database directly.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Technical support is helpful."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Automatic testing is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We have seen a return on investment."
"The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"I like its simplicity."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
 

Cons

"The performance could be a bit better."
"Reports could be customized and more descriptive according to the user's or company's requirements."
"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."
"Tuning the tool takes time because it gives quite a long list of warnings."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"One key area for improvement is the documentation."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"There is a need for an auto-healing feature that can address script failures due to changes in the front end."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is around $5,000 USD."
"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."
"From what I understand, Parasoft SOAtest isn't the cheapest option. But it has a lot to offer."
"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."
"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."
"The license price is a little expensive, but it provides a better outcome in terms of the end-to-end automation process."
"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 solution is open-source, so it is 100% free with no hidden charges."
"Selenium is open-source, so there are no setup costs associated with it."
"The solution is open source."
"This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"We are satisfied with the pricing."
"This is an open-source product that can be used free of charge."
"I have been using the open-source version."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
25%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Computer Software Company
11%
University
4%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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...
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
Selenium is easy to install and mostly free, so there's no need for a license. This lack of costs makes it an attractive option.
 

Also Known As

SOAtest
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about Parasoft SOAtest vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.