IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the API Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #15, while OpenText is ranked #7 with an average rating of 7.8. IBM holds a 0.6% mindshare in APIT, compared to OpenText’s 11.4% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Test Workbench

Read 4 IBM Rational Test Workbench reviews

185 Views
0 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 96 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

4,261 Views
0 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and IBM Rational Test Workbench compete in the automated testing market. IBM Rational Test Workbench holds an edge in features, while OpenText leads in pricing and support, appealing to budget-conscious buyers.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers scriptless test creation, comprehensive automation options, and simplified execution. IBM Rational Test Workbench provides robust integrations, scalability for complex environments, and focuses on collaboration and defect management.

Room for Improvement: OpenText needs enhancement in integrations and complex environment scalability, and should offer better collaboration tools. IBM Rational Test Workbench could simplify setup, offer more intuitive user interfaces, and lower its initial costs for broader appeal.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText provides a straightforward deployment process and responsive support, making it user-friendly. IBM Rational Test Workbench has a more complex deployment but benefits from a comprehensive support network and resources, suited for large-scale environments.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing offers a lower initial cost and attractive ROI for smaller setups. IBM Rational Test Workbench requires higher initial investment but gives considerable value in comprehensive solutions, justifying the cost for organizations needing extensive test automation.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 857,688 peers since 2012

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 API Testing Tools

15th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

39th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (21st)

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in API Testing Tools

7th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 11.4%, up from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Good integration with other tools, stable, scales easily

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. This includes the workbench as well as the other tools. In the future, I would like to see the other types of tests supported, that are not already covered in the DevOps approach. This would include, for example, penetration testing.

Read full review

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development

I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…

Read full review

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."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."

"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."

"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

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."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."

"They should include AI-based testing features."

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."

"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

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."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The price is reasonable."

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

31%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Manufacturing Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?

We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...

See all answers

Comparisons

ReadyAPI Test vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 35% of the time

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 32% of the time

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

May 2025

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

May 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Overview

IBM Rational Test Workbench provides a comprehensive test automation solution for mobile applications, regression testing, integration technologies and performance and scalability testing. It helps you build intelligent and interconnected enterprise applications that can be deployed on traditional and cloud infrastructures. With Rational Test Workbench, you can significantly reduce test cycle times, moving integration testing earlier in the development lifecycle.

IBM

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing

May 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

857,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing report.

See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors and best Test Automation 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.