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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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 Test Automation Tools
36th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (19th), API Testing Tools (15th)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (9th), Regression Testing Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.9%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation 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.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"Selenium integration."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"The product has many features."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
33%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
7%
 

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 SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.