Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. IBM is ranked #36, while OpenText is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0. IBM holds a 0.2% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
IBM Rational Test Workbench
Read 4 IBM Rational Test Workbench reviews
  • 130 Views
  • 71 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Silk Test
Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews
  • 693 Views
  • 436 Comparison Views
93% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and IBM Rational Test Workbench compete in the realm of automated testing solutions. OpenText Silk Test has the upper hand due to its pricing and support, whereas IBM Rational Test Workbench is superior with its extensive features that justify its price.

Features: OpenText Silk Test offers robust functionalities such as cross-platform testing, script reusability, and simplified operations for quick performance. IBM Rational Test Workbench excels in comprehensive test automation, integration capabilities with IBM solutions, and detailed test case management.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test can improve on providing more detailed reports, expanding integration with third-party applications, and enhancing its scripting flexibility. IBM Rational Test Workbench may improve by simplifying its deployment process, reducing its complexity for beginner users, and offering more competitive pricing options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test is recognized for its straightforward deployment and reliable customer service. IBM Rational Test Workbench's deployment is more intricate, requiring more setup time but is supported by robust IBM customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test is appealing due to its lower setup costs, leading to a quicker ROI. IBM Rational Test Workbench requires higher initial investment but offers substantial long-term ROI due to its extensive feature set, providing substantial value over time.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: April 2025).
Buyer's Guide
IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Silk Test
April 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 850,028 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
36th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (19th), API Testing Tools (15th)
OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (19th), Regression Testing Tools (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Read full review
SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available
While we are performance testing the engineering key, we need to come up with load strategies to commence the test. We'll help to monitor the test, and afterward, we'll help to make all the outcomes, and if they are new, we'll do lots and lots of interpretation and analysis across various servers, to look at response times, and impact. For example, whatever the observations we had during the test, we need to implement it. We'll have to help to catch what exactly is the issues were, and we'll help to see how they can be reduced. Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are. The solution needs better monitoring, especially of CPU.
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."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"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."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
 

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."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"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."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
 

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."
"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."
report
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
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
32%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Silk Test?
The pricing depends on the license used. The pricing is similar to others in the market.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Silk Test?
The pricing could be improved.
See all answers
What is your primary use case for Silk Test?
The product is used for manual, functional, and performance testing. I'm using the tool for loading data into ERP systems.
See all answers
 

Comparisons

ReadyAPI Test vs IBM Rational Test Workbench Logo
ReadyAPI Test vs IBM Rational Test Workbench
Compared 100% of the time
More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors
OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 51% of the time
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 14% of the time
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 14% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 12% of the time
ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 10% of the time
More OpenText Silk Test Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Performance Testing Tools
April 2025
IBM Rational Test Workbench reportDownload IBM Rational Test Workbench product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Test
April 2025
OpenText Silk Test reportDownload OpenText Silk Test product report
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

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
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.
OpenText
 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Buyer's Guide
IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Silk Test
April 2025
Free Report: IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Silk Test
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Silk Test 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.