IBM Rational Functional Tester vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester and OpenText UFT Digital Lab based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
769,630 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
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good.""IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual.""Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time.""The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."

More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pros →

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization.""For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.""The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare.""It is a complete solution for mobile application testing.""The product is easy to use.""The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time.""There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Pros →

Cons
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support.""If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility.""The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run.""They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."

More IBM Rational Functional Tester Cons →

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement.""They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model.""We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it.""We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it.""I would like to see more integration with automation tools.""For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively.""The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
  • More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
  • "The product could be more affordable."
  • "While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
  • More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    769,630 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time.
    Top Answer:The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to… more »
    Top Answer:The solution is used for test automation, and test data creation.
    Top Answer:For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.
    Top Answer:The desktop applications have performance issues since they don't work properly or don't detect objects properly, making it in an area where improvements are required. The product's object detection… more »
    Top Answer:I use the solution in my company to test desktop applications.
    Ranking
    22nd
    Views
    1,293
    Comparisons
    746
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    225
    Rating
    8.0
    21st
    Views
    776
    Comparisons
    525
    Reviews
    3
    Average Words per Review
    398
    Rating
    8.3
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational Functional Tester
    Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
    Learn More
    Overview
    IBM Rational Functional Tester is an automated functional testing and regression testing tool. This software provides automated testing capabilities for functional, regression, GUI, and data-driven testing. Rational Function Tester supports a range of applications, such as web-based, .Net, Java, Siebel, SAP, terminal emulator-based applications, PowerBuilder, Ajax, Adobe Flex, Dojo Toolkit, GEF, Adobe PDF documents, zSeries, iSeries, and pSeries.
    Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.
    Sample Customers
    Edumate
    Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company22%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    Insurance Company6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm20%
    Computer Software Company18%
    Energy/Utilities Company8%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise33%
    Large Enterprise56%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business23%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise67%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise65%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise80%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    769,630 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, HCL OneTest, Selenium HQ and Worksoft Certify, whereas OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, Perfecto, AWS Device Farm and Sauce Labs.

    See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.

    We monitor all Functional 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.