No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
16th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
28th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (18th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in API Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 3.3%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 15.6%, up from 11.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing15.6%
IBM Rational Test Workbench3.3%
Other81.1%
API Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Specialist, ITE at a government with 10,001+ employees
Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing
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.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"IBM Rational integrates the testing software as Rational Test Workbench, which is quite convenient and efficient as it is able to automate the test scripts."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."
"The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"It's simple to set up."
"At our company, we have everything from mainframe to modern web UI, and UFT allows us to test all of those sites."
 

Cons

"Implementing custom functions is bit tedious job, as ECMA script does not support some of the standard java-script functions, Also the Script editor window is not user friendly."
"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."
"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."
"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"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 could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"I would like a version that works quicker. Also, a lot of people can't afford it because it's expensive."
"Technical support could be improved."
"It’s in the middle and not always 100% reliable."
"Cross-browser testing feature should be improved."
"UFT still requires some coding."
"The solution is 70-80% stable. Stability really depends on the servers or the license which we have installed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The price is reasonable."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"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."
"It's an expensive solution."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Construction Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

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

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.