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

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 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 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)
OpenText Functional Testing...
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 1.6%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.2%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers3.2%
IBM Rational Test Workbench1.6%
Other95.2%
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.
Eitan Gold - PeerSpot reviewer
SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.
User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities
OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"All IBM testing tools are really well integrated."
"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."
"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."
"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 most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"I would say the most valuable is that we can get people started off really quickly on solutions because we've been partners with HPE for a long time and it helps us tailor the product to our needs."
"To the business, I would say overall it increases the amount of testing that gets done, with more people interacting with automating."
"LeanFT's been very good."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"Integrates well with other products."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
 

Cons

"Rational Performance Tester supports cloud technology in the version 8.7, playing test scripts back on the cloud is not stable."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I would give six for scalability because TestComplete is lightweight, but unlike that, OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is heavyweight and consumes almost half of the system memory whenever it is up and running, frequently making the system hang."
"I'd like to not have to use Selenium. I'd like to be able to do headless scripting and not just always be UI serving."
"Technical support was not very good. We do reach out, but often they're unable to help."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills."
"In the next release I'd like to see HP enable LeanFT to work with Sauce Labs."
"There are still some stability issues."
 

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 is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Construction Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?
As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?
For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...
 

Also Known As

Rational Test Workbench, IBM Rational Performance Tester, IBM Functional Tester, IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server
Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.
Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.