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

Good for simple requests, simple scripts, assertions, and small workflows. Also not bad with the Open Source version if savvy with code as you can do a lot with custom functionality.Free version has limited compatibility with scripts/projects created from the Pro version, but functionality-wise can probably be made up with coding. As such, the free version may not be too suitable for complex scripts or for those who are not familiar with coding as functionality/usability may be limited.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Ease of implementation
• Ease of use
• User friendly interface

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

Compared to SoapUI, we have been using "light" tools like RestClient extension in Firefox, or Postman. Compared to Postman, SoapUI is more simple for WSDL / SOAP webservices, as SoapUI generate all envelop, but Postman does not. For Rest API, I think that Postman is a little above SoapUI, but not too far away.

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