We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."
"The solution scales well."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"The cost is not that bad."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
Parasoft SOAtest is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 1 review while SoapUI Pro is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 9 reviews. Parasoft SOAtest is rated 7.0, while SoapUI Pro is rated 8.2. 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 SoapUI Pro writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". Parasoft SOAtest is most compared with SonarQube, Postman, Coverity, Tricentis Tosca and ReadyAPI, whereas SoapUI Pro is most compared with ReadyAPI, Postman, Apache JMeter, Tricentis Tosca and Katalon Studio.
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.