IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText UFT One comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the API Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #15, while OpenText is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 0.5% mindshare in APIT, compared to OpenText’s 11.2% 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

159 Views
88 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

4,597 Views
2,905 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

OpenText UFT One and IBM Rational Test Workbench compete in the test automation market. IBM Rational Test Workbench has the upper hand due to its advanced capabilities and comprehensive feature set.

Features: OpenText UFT One supports various automation technologies, integrates seamlessly with other OpenText tools, and is user-friendly. IBM Rational Test Workbench manages complex test environments, offers extensive reporting capabilities, and provides robust feature sets.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One could improve its debugging process, provide better support for non-standard applications, and enhance its technical features. IBM Rational Test Workbench needs to improve its user experience, simplify the setup process, and streamline its interface.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One has an easy deployment process and responsive customer service. IBM Rational Test Workbench has a complex deployment but offers comprehensive support services.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One users find the setup cost reasonable with satisfactory ROI due to efficient testing processes. IBM Rational Test Workbench is more expensive, but its advanced features justify the higher cost, leading to excellent ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 849,686 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

36th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (19th)

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in API Testing Tools

6th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

2nd

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 (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 11.2%, up from 9.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Testing 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

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

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

"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."

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

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

"The product's initial setup phase is easy and straightforward."

"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."

"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."

More OpenText UFT One pros

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."

"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."

"UFT still requires some coding."

"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."

"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."

"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."

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

More OpenText UFT One 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 licensing and pricing model is confusing."

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

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

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

"The price is reasonable."

"The tool's price is high."

"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."

More OpenText UFT One 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

849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

31%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

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 100% of the time

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

April 2025

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

April 2025

Download OpenText UFT One 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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

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 UFT One

April 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One 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.