IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. IBM is ranked #37, while OpenText is ranked #11 with an average rating of 7.8. IBM holds a 0.3% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Test Workbench

Read 4 IBM Rational Test Workbench reviews

153 Views
25 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 38 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,597 Views
180 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

OpenText Functional Testing...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

IBM Rational Test Workbench and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers compete in the test automation category, aiming to enhance software quality. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers holds an edge due to its rich feature set and flexible integration capabilities compared to the robust framework offered by IBM Rational Test Workbench.

Features: IBM Rational Test Workbench provides comprehensive scripting tools, automated functional and performance testing, and API testing capabilities. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers excels with seamless integration across platforms, support for continuous testing, and strong alignment with agile and DevOps practices.

Room for Improvement: IBM Rational Test Workbench could improve by enhancing its platform integration and continuous testing support. It may also benefit from a more adaptive feature set to better align with modern agile development practices. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers could improve ease of use in complex scenarios, broaden its supported environments, and offer more detailed reporting features.

Ease Of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM Rational Test Workbench offers a structured deployment model with extensive documentation and responsive customer service. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers also provides easy deployment with flexible configurations and is distinguished by its proactive customer service and personalized support, making it attractive in dynamic environments.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Rational Test Workbench features moderate setup costs with strong ROI over time attributed to stable performance. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers a competitive pricing model that delivers higher ROI by leveraging its advanced features and integration options, providing significant long-term value.

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

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,168 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 Test Automation Tools

37th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (21st), API Testing Tools (16th)

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.5%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation 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

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

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."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"The solution is very scalable."

"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."

"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."

"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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."

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."

"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

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 pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

29%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Non Profit

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 52% of the time

ReadyAPI Test vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 48% of the time

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 53% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 15% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

May 2025

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

June 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Also Known As

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

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

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 for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

June 2025

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

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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

See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Automation 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.