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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs Qt Squish comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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
28th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (18th), API Testing Tools (16th)
Qt Squish
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 1.6%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qt Squish is 2.2%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Qt Squish2.2%
IBM Rational Test Workbench1.6%
Other96.2%
Test Automation 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.
Luc Vangrunderbeeck - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Test Engineer at Infrabel
Testing solution supports Java testing with good reliability
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java. You need to set up some special environment variables to be able to do that.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"Stable automation suites; it is cheaper than most of other vendor automation tools, it supports a wide range of tool-kits, even embedded solutions, one tool for all your products."
"The biggest ROI is the time that we got back from our QA team because they didn’t have to manually regression test our product every release."
"If you are looking for simple, not expensive, with nice support and for Qt-application tool – I think, it’s the best one."
"Powerful and intuitive Integrated Development Environment (IDE) - I use this IDE daily for creating new tests, debugging tests and running tests."
"It is very stable."
"It supports many platforms, which helps in getting automation solutions for most of the complex UI products."
"Squish is integrated with Qt, which enables us to test the user interface effectively."
"Now we have completely automated the Squish runs using CI tools and Squish is not at all getting stuck or creating any problem."
 

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."
"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. 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."
"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."
"Features like recovery scenarios can be added as an improvement Reporting can be improved."
"I like it how it is, but it's not cheap."
"Anyhow, we can't automate the applications which are completely built on C/C++ without using Qt."
"Recording tests with Squish IDE creates quite ugly code and it is very difficult to maintain tests that have been recorded."
"It would make the work of the Squish user easier and quicker if Squish would display the proper feature names, when assigned."
"As things stand, continuous integration is very poor, and when you work in production you need many more settings in order to tune it, to be a Web user interface, for example, which is currently impossible."
"Sometimes, I had problems, but their support team resolved almost of them in short time."
"The platform could be improved by implementing some basic functionalities that are frequently used, such as login procedures and screen handling when multiple screens are used at the workplace."
 

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 price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."
"The platform is highly-priced."
"It is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
20%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for froglogic Squish?
I'm aware of the price from three or four years ago, and it depends on the number of users. For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.
What needs improvement with froglogic Squish?
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need ...
What is your primary use case for froglogic Squish?
I am not really using the solution during development, however, for regression and automatic regression tests, I am using it. I use it to do visual Qt, which focuses on the GUI part of the applicat...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. Qt Squish and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.