IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. IBM is ranked #31, while OpenText is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.0. IBM holds a 0.9% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 1.3% 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

732 Views
366 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,149 Views
758 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

OpenText Silk Test

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.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Silk Test

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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

31st

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (18th), API Testing Tools (14th)

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (20th), Regression Testing Tools (8th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.9%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.3%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Silk Test	1.3%
IBM Rational Test Workbench	0.9%
Other	97.8%

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer1513668

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.

Read full review

Jose Alfredo Garcia

Manager of Central Excellence at Alpura

Easy to set up with good documentation and easy management of testing cycles

The solution allows for a complete test cycle. The management of testing cycles are easy. We have good control over test cases. We can capture functional testing very easily. We're actually able to accelerate testing now and have end-to-end cycles for testing. We didn't used to have these capabilities. It's easy to automate and accelerate testing. The product offers very good cross-browser testing capabilities. We can do continuous testing and regression testing.

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."

"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."

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."

"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."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"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."

"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."

Cons

"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."

"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."

"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."

"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."

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."

"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."

"The pricing could be improved."

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."

"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."

"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."

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

31%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Non Profit

University

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	10

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

OpenText Functional Testing vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 12% of the time

Perfecto vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 11% of the time

Postman Enterprise vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 10% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 9% of the time

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 18% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 9% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

January 2026

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

January 2026

Download 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

January 2026

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: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 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.