IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the API Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #15, while OpenText is ranked #7 with an average rating of 7.8. IBM holds a 0.6% mindshare in APIT, compared to OpenText’s 11.4% 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

185 Views
0 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 96 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

4,261 Views
0 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

OpenText Functional Testing

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and IBM Rational Test Workbench compete in the automated testing market. IBM Rational Test Workbench holds an edge in features, while OpenText leads in pricing and support, appealing to budget-conscious buyers.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing offers scriptless test creation, comprehensive automation options, and simplified execution. IBM Rational Test Workbench provides robust integrations, scalability for complex environments, and focuses on collaboration and defect management.

Room for Improvement: OpenText needs enhancement in integrations and complex environment scalability, and should offer better collaboration tools. IBM Rational Test Workbench could simplify setup, offer more intuitive user interfaces, and lower its initial costs for broader appeal.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText provides a straightforward deployment process and responsive support, making it user-friendly. IBM Rational Test Workbench has a more complex deployment but benefits from a comprehensive support network and resources, suited for large-scale environments.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing offers a lower initial cost and attractive ROI for smaller setups. IBM Rational Test Workbench requires higher initial investment but gives considerable value in comprehensive solutions, justifying the cost for organizations needing extensive test automation.

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

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 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

39th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (21st)

OpenText Functional Testing

Ranking in API Testing Tools

7th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

4th

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 (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.6%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 11.4%, up from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

KashifJamil

CEO at Xcelliti

Good integration with other tools, stable, scales easily

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. This includes the workbench as well as the other tools. In the future, I would like to see the other types of tests supported, that are not already covered in the DevOps approach. This would include, for example, penetration testing.

Read full review

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development

I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…

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."

"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

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

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

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

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."

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."

"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."

"The solution is expensive."

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."

"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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."

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

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

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"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 tool's price is high."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

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

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

29%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Non Profit

Manufacturing Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

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 34% of the time

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 31% of the time

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 30% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

May 2025

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

June 2025

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

May 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: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 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.