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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs Parasoft SOAtest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 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

IBM Rational Test Workbench
Ranking in API Testing Tools
15th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
28th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (19th)
Parasoft SOAtest
Ranking in API Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (20th), Functional Testing Tools (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 2.4%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Parasoft SOAtest is 4.1%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Parasoft SOAtest4.1%
IBM Rational Test Workbench2.4%
Other93.5%
API Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Specialist, ITE at a government with 10,001+ employees
Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing
It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script.
reviewer2772063 - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality Specialist 2A at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Has reduced manual testing effort with customization options but occasionally crashes during complex executions
One improvement would be to integrate it with modern technologies such as AI, so we can generate test cases by providing the details so that it can generate the structure, and later the person working can modify and enhance it. We can add more customized tools, and reporting can be enhanced. Currently, the reporting part is at a step level, and it does not give details for a particular test case, so improvements in those areas would be beneficial. There are performance issues where the tool crashes sometimes. In particular use cases with numerous steps, it experiences crashes. I have encountered stability and performance issues with it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"IBM Rational integrates the testing software as Rational Test Workbench, which is quite convenient and efficient as it is able to automate the test scripts."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"It provides easy handling of RESTful APIs and figuring out exact API scalability, responses, and failed APIs, returning code captured by the fault injections."
"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."
"We don’t have to manually create .EDN and .XML messages, because we can do this with just one click now, which drastically decreases the time that is required to create these messages."
"Utilizing features that support Data Driven testing and E2E has increased efficiencies drastically."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"As an expert user, you can accomplish a lot with this tool."
"It has allowed us to build a large library of repeatable automated tests that are able to be quickly executed on demand."
 

Cons

"There are a number of things that they can do to simplify the tools, but the most important thing that they need to do is simplify the installation."
"It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there. What it does, it does great, but it only gives you limited types of protocols. It supports between 8 to 15 types of protocols, whereas other test tools give you 20 to 30 types of protocols with which you can do testing and convert to script. It records Javascript-based scripts, and you got to know a little bit of Java to basically be able to edit them, but the level of editing you got to do is very low. I like that, but the ability to edit the script is not as good as Parasoft or LoadRunner, which have C-Script."
"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"There are a number of things that they can do to simplify the tools, but the most important thing that they need to do is simplify the installation."
"Implementing custom functions is bit tedious job, as ECMA script does not support some of the standard java-script functions, Also the Script editor window is not user friendly."
"It should have more interfaces. In terms of interfaces or protocols, what you can do with Rational is far limited as compared to other products out there."
"The need to refresh 'Test Case Explorer' when adding a data source or environment file, can be improved."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"In terms of improvements for Parasoft SOAtest, some features could be added or perhaps existing areas could be improved, such as lowering prices."
"Performance issues if there are too many sessions open on your system."
"We noticed that our project workspace is sometimes corrupted without any reason."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"We have good support of our solution architect of Parasoft, but sometimes they don’t know all the answers and then it’s harder to find more knowledge in technical support from US teams, which slows things down."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"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."
"I think it would be a great step to decrease the price of the licenses."
"They do have a confusing licensing structure."
"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."
"We are completed satisfied with Parasoft SOAtest. The ROI is more than 95%."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Non Profit
8%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
8%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Parasoft SOAtest?
I am not involved in the pricing aspect, setup cost, or licensing cost of Parasoft SOAtest. Our dedicated tools and support teams handle those aspects.
What needs improvement with Parasoft SOAtest?
One improvement would be to integrate it with modern technologies such as AI, so we can generate test cases by providing the details so that it can generate the structure, and later the person work...
What is your primary use case for Parasoft SOAtest?
We use Parasoft SOAtest for API testing and service virtualization with responder setup. Service virtualization is very helpful in our testing. When any downstream system is not available or we are...
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
SOAtest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Charter Communications, Sabre, Caesars Entertainment, Charles Schwab, ING, Intel, Northbridge Financial, Capital Services, WoodmenLife
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. Parasoft SOAtest and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.