IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM Logo
185 views|114 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
6,517 views|3,961 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench and OpenText UFT One based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Postman, Tricentis, Apache and others in API Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed API Testing Tools Report (Updated: May 2024).
771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
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.""This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Pros →

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test.""​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users.""The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms.""The initial setup is relatively easy.""The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner.""UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support.""It offers a wide range of testing.""The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

More OpenText UFT One Pros →

Cons
"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.""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."

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Cons →

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources.""The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile.""I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better.""The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails.""It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this.""[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution.""Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent.""The solution does not have proper scripting."

More OpenText UFT One Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
  • "It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
  • More IBM Rational Test Workbench Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."
  • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well… more »
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on… more »
    Ranking
    12th
    out of 17 in API Testing Tools
    Views
    185
    Comparisons
    114
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    4th
    out of 17 in API Testing Tools
    Views
    6,517
    Comparisons
    3,961
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    8.1
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Overview
    IBM Rational Test Workbench provides a comprehensive test automation solution for mobile applications, regression testing, integration technologies and performance and scalability testing. It helps you build intelligent and interconnected enterprise applications that can be deployed on traditional and cloud infrastructures. With Rational Test Workbench, you can significantly reduce test cycle times, moving integration testing earlier in the development lifecycle.
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Financial Insurance Management Corp.
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Government13%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Government6%
    Company Size
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise6%
    Large Enterprise73%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    API Testing Tools
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Postman, Tricentis, Apache and others in API Testing Tools. Updated: May 2024.
    771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 12th in API Testing Tools while OpenText UFT One is ranked 4th in API Testing Tools with 89 reviews. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Test Workbench writes "Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with Postman, whereas OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite.

    See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.

    We monitor all API 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.