IT Central Station is now PeerSpot: Here's why

IBM Rational Functional Tester vs Silk Test comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Featured Review
Buyer's Guide
Functional Testing Tools
June 2022
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Micro Focus, Sauce Labs and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: June 2022.
610,812 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."

More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pros →

"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities.""A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing.""Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."

More Silk Test Pros →

Cons
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."

More IBM Rational Functional Tester Cons →

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side.""The support for automation with iOS applications can be better.""We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."

More Silk Test Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
  • "Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."
  • "We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
  • More Silk Test Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    610,812 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual.
    Top Answer:RFT needs to think from a contemporary point of view — from the current context. They need to look at the way they're positioning the tool. They need to do a complete revamp so that even a… more »
    Top Answer:We provide this solution and others like it to our customers. We have implemented IBM Rational Functional Tester for at least 10 to 15 customers between banking and telecom.
    Top Answer:Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts.
    Top Answer:We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee.
    Top Answer:We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw… more »
    Ranking
    25th
    Views
    2,392
    Comparisons
    1,424
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    682
    Rating
    5.0
    18th
    Views
    3,889
    Comparisons
    2,537
    Reviews
    3
    Average Words per Review
    752
    Rating
    7.7
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational Functional Tester
    Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
    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.
    SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.
    Offer
    Learn more about IBM Rational Functional Tester
    Learn more about Silk Test
    Sample Customers
    Edumate
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company25%
    Comms Service Provider14%
    Government9%
    Financial Services Firm6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company29%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Comms Service Provider12%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business13%
    Midsize Enterprise38%
    Large Enterprise50%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise69%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise73%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    June 2022
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Micro Focus, Sauce Labs and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: June 2022.
    610,812 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools with 1 review while Silk Test is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 3 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 5.0, while Silk Test is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "A highly compatible solution; lacks modernity". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and SmartBear TestComplete, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence.

    See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.