We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench and Katalon Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Postman, Tricentis, Apache and others in API Testing Tools."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."
"Our clients have requested by all types of testing, including mobile, desktop, and API testing and all of those are covered by Katalon. I find that very valuable, very complete."
"The most valuable feature of Katalon Studio is the ease of use of the solution."
"We can write code in Java and it is easy to link to other JARs that we find on the internet, which is very handy."
"We are now performing automated testing in 15 minutes, which were previously taking a long time when doing it manually."
"Video capture on failure is a must have. A picture is worth a thousand words. A video is worth a thousand pictures (literally)."
"It has been good so far for API testing on Mac. It is not that hard to learn and use. There is so much support out there, so if anyone wants to start using it, there is enough help."
"It supports multiple easy-to-learn languages."
"This is a product that is well ahead of its immediate competition in features and functionality."
"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."
"One aspect that can be improved is testing for desktop applications. I would like to see them support more technologies in this area."
"I've seen that our clients are not truly aware of the power behind Katalon."
"The price of the solution is a bit high. It's one of the reasons we decided not to continue using the product."
"Katalon lacks integration with other software, including integrating other languages like .NET and PHP."
"I can say that in my company, we struggle a lot with iOS automation."
"The integration process with Jira should be enhanced and facilitated."
"It is difficult to identify elements on websites that use Angular or ReactJS because they don't have an option to view source code."
"Object Spy is brittle. When I try to capture objects, I have to proceed multiple times before it works."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 11th in API Testing Tools while Katalon Studio is ranked 5th in API Testing Tools with 40 reviews. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while Katalon Studio is rated 7.8. 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 Katalon Studio writes "Useful multiple technology platform, scalable, but usability could improve". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with HCL OneTest and Postman, whereas Katalon Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Postman, OpenText UFT One, Appium and Testim.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression 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.