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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs Perfecto comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
Users praise IBM Rational Test Workbench's responsive, knowledgeable support, though some mention occasional delays; overall satisfaction is high.
No sentiment score available
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
IBM Rational Test Workbench needs better integration, improved reporting, enhanced performance, increased stability, simplified setup, and more comprehensive documentation.
No sentiment score available
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
IBM Rational Test Workbench is efficient for large-scale testing, praised for automation, adaptability, and strong integration capabilities despite setup complexity.
No sentiment score available
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
IBM Rational Test Workbench offers flexible, potentially costly pricing, appreciated for features but expensive compared to alternatives, with volume licensing available.
No sentiment score available
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Users praise IBM Rational Test Workbench for its reliability, robustness, and integration, but some report occasional glitches needing attention.
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
IBM Rational Test Workbench is favored for its integration, automation, comprehensive test coverage, and performance in continuous integration and delivery processes.
No sentiment score available
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational Test Workbench
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
18th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
34th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (12th)
Perfecto
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
13th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (11th), Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.4%, down from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 0.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Roland Castelino - PeerSpot reviewer
Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed
The most valuable would be their Live Stream analysis, where I can see the live analysis of all the executions on a single device or multiple devices as well as track them. The live analysis and reporting would be the single most valuable feature. We leverage Perfecto’s reporting and analytics a lot. From the CI Dashboard, it is mainly the status, which is the past, failure count, and time consumption, e.g., how much time did an average test or script take? Along with that, it provides the historical view compared to the previous result, e.g., am I a pass or fail? Also, the stack trace is very important. Whenever a pass occurs, we don't look beyond that. However, whenever a failure occurs, the stack trace information that it gives us is pretty critical for us when figuring out where failures lie. It gives a summary for the pass/fail count, total test count, the historical view, time consumption for each test as well as the total tests, and the stack rate of the failure. Perfecto's analytics are very important since we use them on a daily basis. We run our executions daily. After every execution, we pull information from the Perfecto reporting system and share that with our stakeholders. Having this information accurately reported is pretty important for us, so everybody is aware of the current status of the product. That way, we can evaluate the health of the product or environment against that which has been executed. Therefore, it helps make those real-time decisions and highlights the impact to the business. I found Perfecto to be pretty easy to use while executing against cross-platforms. The main reason is because the same script or test automation where we execute on multiple platforms has minimal changes that I need to do. Also, it is easy for me to set up an execution on one platform, then on another platform, either in parallel or one after the other. Parallel opportunities save me time. Once the execution has been completed across these different configurations, I can always check and compare, e.g., what are the differences and consistencies? We utilize Perfecto’s cloud-based lab to test across devices, browsers, and OSs. I use it occasionally for manual testing. Though, there are other team members who use it more frequently than I do. I use it mainly for executing my automated tests. We have the Perfecto lab, cloud devices, and machines. I can program my test to execute against any of those devices, which gives me more confidence in my product. I can compare and see how my product or application functionally behaves across these different devices and from a UI point of view, which helps me a lot. The device lab is extremely important to our testing operations. We rely on having multiple devices up and running all the time. Whenever we kick off an execution, there are multiple reasons why executions may get triggered: * CodeCommit * A scheduled job. * Might be on-demand by any stakeholder. We need the lab to be available, as we need devices up and running for executions to take place. Also, the devices help since they allow us to have parallel execution, and not just wait for a sequential device to become free and available. Therefore, volume is definitely key. It also gives us an opportunity to compare execution across platforms in that space. It is extremely important to you that the lab provides same-day access to new devices since we analyze that data every single day after execution. Perfecto provides their own framework called Quantum Framework. That is one option. The other option is, if I want to have my own framework, I can have a Java-based Maven project, take a Selenium library, AppiumLibrary, and REST Assured library, and utilize the open-source framework. It is easy for us to connect to Perfecto, no matter what framework we use, as long as it has these core libraries in it. I can design and structure it any way that I want. The execution will happen in Perfecto no matter what since they have support for these tools or libraries. It is pretty neat that way. We are not dependent on using just one particular framework to use Perfecto. While there are still some framework limitations, there is the opportunity to use multiple, different open-source frameworks, then pass the execution to Perfecto. We can use most frameworks, then design and craft it any way that we want, then just pass the execution to Perfecto.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
11%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Recreational Facilities/Services Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Perfecto?
Mobile testing is the most valuable feature as it has reduced dependency on physical devices. We are located offshore and we don't have the physical devices, and shipping physical devices after eve...
What needs improvement with Perfecto?
It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved. And sometimes we have issues with our app not working properly with Perfecto. Even though it is working perf...
What is your primary use case for Perfecto?
We use it for manual mobile testing and a little bit of web testing.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. Perfecto and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.