We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench and Perfecto based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Performance Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"In terms of Perfecto's ability to perform cross-platform testing, I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"The quality of our software has improved since we implemented this solution."
"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 every new release would be a difficult task. But with Perfecto, it is easy."
"In terms of cross-platform testing, they offer all of it, every device available in the market. It covers real scenarios that mimic production so that we don't miss out on any devices that our clients might be using to run the applications we develop. It's been great and very helpful."
"The number one feature, which if we didn't have out-of-the-box would be missed, is the fact that we have video execution. That gives us the ability to view errors or defects in the progression, from beginning to the end of the video."
"It creates a faster production cycle and is quick to market. Things get deployed earlier because the testing happens on time. We can do a lot of panelization, so a lot of test phases can happen in a panel. People don't have to wait for a device to come to them. They can access multiple devices at the same time and do testing at the same time."
"Their team is really great to work with. They're very flexible, and they always show care. They prioritize our work, our company, and our working relationship. I appreciate the ad hoc sessions that they schedule to provide help with troubleshooting, provide the information that we're looking for, or do a demo of a new feature that they have. They're always willing and very quick to get that scheduled for us. I appreciate that a lot."
"One of the good things about Perfecto is the scalability that it provides."
"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."
"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances. We have been working on a JIRA integration with Perfecto—and I'm extremely impressed that they have that—but at this time they're not supporting onsite JIRA instances, which is what we have."
"One improvement would be speed of execution. If it is an iOS native app, we have noticed that the speed is a bit slower. Perfecto might need to make some improvements in this area."
"We've had a couple of issues lately with videos not loading or browsers dying after some execution, although that happens very rarely."
"There was a discussion about having the capability to export the test results to a certain tool that we use in our project. If that were added it would be great not having to manually take screenshots, put them in a document, and share them on the different test management tools."
"When using devices on the cloud, it lags quite a bit at times. I know that these are real devices that are being projected on our laptop screens and monitors, but if the speed could be improved, that would be good."
"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."
"If we could run an accessibility test in Perfecto against builds, it would help us a lot. Currently, that's a very manual process for us. We haven't found a tool that can do accessibility scans for iOS and doesn't depend on engineering effort. Having a feature related to that would be really awesome for us."
"There could be some improvements done on the interface. At times, there has been a bit of a struggle when finding things on the interface. A UI revamp would be a better option in future. That UI hasn't changed much in a long time, so I think they could just make it a bit better so that people could find stuff easily and intuitively."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 18th in Performance Testing Tools while Perfecto is ranked 8th in Performance Testing Tools with 23 reviews. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while Perfecto is rated 8.4. 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 Perfecto writes "Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with Postman, whereas Perfecto is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Appium, AWS Device Farm and Katalon Studio. See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. Perfecto report.
See our list of best Performance Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Performance 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.
