Ghost Inspector vs. SoapUI Open Source, supported by SmartBear

1. It's amazing for all kinds of browser testing. 2. Very easy to use and you can implement it to cover your tests in a short time. 3. You don't need to be a coding guru, many stuff are autogenerated or builtin and can be easily implemented without huge efforts 4. Reporting and UI is easy to understand and navigate through

Incentivized

If you are making system upgrade project and you have existing system working and you want to imitate messages that are going in production but without making any data loads or switch it’s very suitable and convenient software. It serves well in manual test scenarios but wouldn’t be as good in case of mass tests.

Incentivized

• UI Integration tests
• Asynchronas execution of suites and tests
• Easy way to generate steps of the tests with Chrome plugin

Incentivized

• SOAP
• REST
• Authentication

Incentivized

• The number of available integrations is small, but I see more integrations are coming on the way
• Provide builtin alerting system in case of test failures
• Improve provide more roles not only user and administrator. A viewer role for example

Incentivized

• I actually like SoapUI as it is, I have not found things to improve, except for the speed of response is very complex services.

Incentivized

1. Faster in terms of time when building the integration browser tests 2. No or minimum development skills needed. 3. No server management is needed on our end. 4. Covers a lot of browsers and cases 5. Builtin integrations for different stuff like slack and PD 6. Fast and provides asynchronous executions

Incentivized

SoapUI Open Source is free, which is good for light use or simple things here and there. There is a Pro version that makes things more user-friendly. I also like that custom code can also be used for doing more complicated tasks. I like that SoapUI can have a process/flow (conditional/loop/waits/etc.) set up for scripting purposes, which is good for beginners and light users. However, I think the user interface has room for improvement.

Incentivized

• We saved a lot of money by using this tool instead of purchasing expensive ones
• The implementation of integrations test was supposed to take 6 months of development. With GI it took 2 months only
• Training QA to build integration tests using GI is much less that any other tool that might need development skills

Incentivized

• Testing resolves most of the issues in the development phases.
• User friendliness of the app makes it good.
• Overall client happiness depends on the clean project, which is possible by testing.

Incentivized