IBM Rational Test Workbench vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

IBM and SmartBear are both solutions in the API Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #13, while SmartBear is ranked #8 with an average rating of 7.3. IBM holds a 0.5% mindshare in APIT, compared to SmartBear’s 5.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Test Workbench

Read 4 IBM Rational Test Workbench reviews

152 Views
92 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

ReadyAPI Test

Read 31 ReadyAPI Test reviews

1,702 Views
1,452 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

ReadyAPI Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

IBM Rational Test Workbench and ReadyAPI Test compete in the testing tools category. ReadyAPI Test seems to have the upper hand with its straightforward deployment and broad functionalities.

Features: IBM Rational Test Workbench is valued for its robust scripting capabilities, seamless integration with other IBM tools, and extensive test automation features. ReadyAPI Test is recognized for its easy configuration, broad protocol support, and powerful assertion functionalities.

Room for Improvement: IBM Rational Test Workbench could improve in stability, reducing resource consumption, and enhancing its user interface. ReadyAPI Test could improve its reporting capabilities, reduce initial setup complexity, and expand its documentation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM Rational Test Workbench deployment is often complex, yet users find the support comprehensive. ReadyAPI Test provides a straightforward deployment process and responsive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Rational Test Workbench is seen as expensive but offers reliable ROI with its vast features. ReadyAPI Test also represents a significant investment, delivering excellent value for money through its comprehensive functionalities.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test Report (Updated: January 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test

January 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 838,713 peers since 2012

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

13th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (19th), Test Automation Tools (35th)

ReadyAPI Test

Ranking in API Testing Tools

8th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (22nd), Regression Testing Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 5.7%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668

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.

Read full review

Faiz Ahmed

Test Automation Specialist / Lead at Tata Consultancy Services

You can achieve any complex task with this tool

There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases. For example, it would be nice to have a Selenium plugin available from the menu, where I can select "open browser" and provide the URL. That URL would be immediately open in the browser. This is like a keyword, and then the Selenium plugin should be there.

Read full 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."

"The Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."

"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."

"The solution has some good scanning features."

"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."

"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."

"The tool’s scalability is very good."

"The interface is user-friendly."

"SoapUI Pro is a good tool when it comes to API design and orchestration. Additionally, it is beneficial for functional and for performance testing."

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."

"The UI should be improved."

"Automation features are not user-friendly."

"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."

"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."

"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."

"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."

"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."

"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."

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."

"The cost is not that bad."

"SoapUI Pro is open source but it has a subscription-based model which involves some more features. At the moment we are using the free version. The Pro version requires a license, and it is an annual license to use it."

"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."

"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."

"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."

"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."

"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."

"It is free of charge."

More ReadyAPI Test pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

17%

Government

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

25%

Computer Software Company

13%

Insurance Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

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 SoapUI Pro?

The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SoapUI Pro?

ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with SoapUI Pro?

ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would b...

See all answers

Comparisons

No data available

Postman vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 80% of the time

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 13% of the time

ReadyAPI vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 4% of the time

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

February 2025

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

ReadyAPI Test

February 2025

Download ReadyAPI Test product report

Also Known As

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

SoapUI NG Pro

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.

IBM

For REST, SOAP and other popular API and IoT protocols, SoapUI NG Pro provides the industry's most comprehensive and easy-to-learn functional testing capabilities. Based on open core technology proven by millions of community members, SoapUI NG Pro helps you ensure that your APIs perform as intended, meet your business requirements, timeframes, and team skill sets right from day one.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.

Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test

January 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test report.

See our list of best API Testing 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.