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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs UiPath Test Cloud comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 4, 2026

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
28th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (19th)
UiPath Test Cloud
Ranking in API Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (5th), Test Management Tools (4th), Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 1.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of UiPath Test Cloud is 3.7%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
UiPath Test Cloud3.7%
IBM Rational Test Workbench1.4%
Other94.9%
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.
SK
Senior Solutions Architect at a outsourcing company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Integrates well and supports end-to-end workflows with API integration
I deal with various tools including UiPath Test Cloud, Sauce Labs, Postman, and the latest feature, Copilot, so I use everything. A lot of tools are involved. There is a significant difference between Sauce Labs and UiPath Test Cloud; while Sauce Labs offers automation capabilities, the differentiating factor is test coverage. UiPath Test Cloud hits a higher percentage of test cases per lines of code, which means it may cover 7,000 lines in automated tests from 10,000, as opposed to 3,000-4,000 lines with Sauce Labs in a similar scenario. Sauce Labs is less expensive than some of the other tools, and while UiPath Test Cloud has become much better and easier to use than in the past, Sauce Labs was initially user-friendly, but now UiPath Test Cloud has improved significantly from its earlier, more complicated interface.

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."
"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"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."
"It facilitates the delegation of control to multiple users and offers an efficient way to organize tasks using labels."
"We can generate our own workflow. In our case, it is a report on the PDF file. In the reporting category, we generally verify a couple of things and generate a lot of reports at the end of the day. It provides some useful details about the data captured from the PDF that we can put into an Excel file."
"It has reduced all the deployment cycles of the automation solutions by forty percent."
"Its automated execution when a different package changes and using different test cases defined in an Excel file are particularly useful."
"We also don't develop test robots like typing codes; we program them with drag-and-drop features."
"UiPath's tools are generally designed for business users, so they can be as simple or as complex as needed."
"It's useful for automating tasks."
"We are finding bugs and defects much faster."
 

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."
"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."
"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."
"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"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."
"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."
"Our primary application is built on Windows, so we've faced no significant challenges. However, I think mobile automation is one area where the solution still needs some work."
"Orchestrator is not easy to use or understand."
"There is room for improvement in terms of introducing framework compatibility."
"The initial setup of UiPath Test Cloud is a mixed bag; while setting up the tool is easy, building the tests is always tedious."
"With Selenium, there is a plugin called Healenium, which helps automatically detect changed properties of objects. With one click, it automatically updates the object repository with the changed properties. I would like UiPath to add that capability."
"We'd like to see the solution integrate with more code or local frameworks."
"We are able to automate most tasks by using UiPath. Its interface is fine. However, its price is a bit high."
"I'd like the solution to be even more automated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It doesn't really concern me. Licensing is on a yearly basis."
"The pricing is a little bit on the higher side, although it is really good."
"I wasn't involved in the negotiations for the UiPath Test Suite, so I have no information on its pricing."
"The cost of a UiPath Test Suite license for five users is over $10,000 USD."
"One robot license costs 1,500 euros."
"I consider it expensive. I would rate it a seven out of ten for pricing. It's priced per license on an annual basis. Our customers usually pay around 30K to 35K for five licenses, which is priced per year."
"When we decided to buy the solution three and a half years ago, it was fairly priced."
"I don't necessarily have a problem with the pricing of the UiPath Test Suite, especially because we're using the testing bot licenses as opposed to the unattended licensing."
"It is a little bit more expensive than Selenium, but it provides value for money. There are multiple types of licenses such as the Test Suite license, Studio Pro license, Test Manager license, and Test Robot license. The overall cost estimation is 13,800 dollars."
"It represents good value for the investment."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Non Profit
8%
University
6%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise19
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about UiPath Test Suite?
Being able to use regular expressions, activities, and attributes is valuable.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for UiPath Test Suite?
I consider it expensive. I would rate it a seven out of ten for pricing. It's priced per license on an annual basis. Our customers usually pay around 30K to 35K for five licenses, which is priced p...
What needs improvement with UiPath Test Suite?
The speed could be improved. I've noticed that adding more users impacts the speed, although nothing stops entirely. The speed for each transaction might be slower, but I cannot pinpoint exactly wh...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. UiPath Test Cloud and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.