IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the API Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #14, while OpenText is ranked #6 with an average rating of 7.7. IBM holds a 1.8% 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

732 Views
278 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 98 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

7,884 Views
3,469 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and IBM Rational Test Workbench compete in automation testing tools. IBM Rational Test Workbench appears to have an edge due to its advanced features, despite its higher price, indicating a value-driven preference for those seeking comprehensive functionality.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing integrates well and is user-friendly, especially in complex environments, and offers cost-effective automation. IBM Rational Test Workbench provides comprehensive testing capabilities, advanced scripting options, and extensive functionality across different platforms.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could enhance its configuration process and support for more testing environments. IBM Rational Test Workbench might refine its user interface for simplicity, reduce its complexity in feature access, and work on cost reduction strategies.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM Rational Test Workbench stands out with its straightforward deployment and robust customer support, offering rapid response times. OpenText Functional Testing, although user-friendly, might require more configuration effort but maintains competitive support standards.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing offers competitive pricing with high ROI attributed to efficient automation. In contrast, IBM Rational Test Workbench, despite higher initial costs, provides strong ROI through its rich feature set, making it appealing for those needing extensive capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing

December 2025

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 API Testing Tools

14th

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)

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in API Testing Tools

6th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

5th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (4th), Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 1.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 11.2%, up from 10.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	11.2%
IBM Rational Test Workbench	1.8%
Other	87.0%

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

Kevin Copple

Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness

Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

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."

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

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

"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 ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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."

"UFT still requires some coding."

"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"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."

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

"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."

"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

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."

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

"The price is reasonable."

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

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

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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

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

21%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

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?

See all answers

Comparisons

Perfecto vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 12% 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

ReadyAPI Test vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 8% of the time

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 19% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 6% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

January 2026

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

January 2026

Download OpenText Functional Testing 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

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

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 Functional Testing

December 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing 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.