IBM Rational Test Workbench vs OpenText UFT One comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the API Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #15, while OpenText is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.1. IBM holds a 0.5% mindshare in APIT, compared to OpenText’s 11.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Test Workbench

Read 4 IBM Rational Test Workbench reviews

159 Views
88 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 95 OpenText UFT One reviews

4,597 Views
2,905 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

OpenText UFT One and IBM Rational Test Workbench compete in the test automation market. IBM Rational Test Workbench has the upper hand due to its advanced capabilities and comprehensive feature set.

Features: OpenText UFT One supports various automation technologies, integrates seamlessly with other OpenText tools, and is user-friendly. IBM Rational Test Workbench manages complex test environments, offers extensive reporting capabilities, and provides robust feature sets.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One could improve its debugging process, provide better support for non-standard applications, and enhance its technical features. IBM Rational Test Workbench needs to improve its user experience, simplify the setup process, and streamline its interface.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT One has an easy deployment process and responsive customer service. IBM Rational Test Workbench has a complex deployment but offers comprehensive support services.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One users find the setup cost reasonable with satisfactory ROI due to efficient testing processes. IBM Rational Test Workbench is more expensive, but its advanced features justify the higher cost, leading to excellent ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,040 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

36th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (19th)

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in API Testing Tools

6th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

2nd

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 (3rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 11.2%, up from 9.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

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."

"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."

"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."

"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."

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

"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."

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

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."

More OpenText UFT One pros

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."

"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."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

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

"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."

"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."

"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."

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."

"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."

"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."

More OpenText UFT One 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."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"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."

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

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"It's an expensive solution."

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

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

More OpenText UFT One 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

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

32%

Computer Software Company

14%

Government

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

14%

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?

UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...

See all answers

Comparisons

ReadyAPI Test vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 100% of the time

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

March 2025

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT One 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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

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 UFT One

February 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. OpenText UFT One 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.