IBM Rational Test Workbench vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

IBM and SmartBear are both solutions in the API Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #17, while SmartBear is ranked #10 with an average rating of 6.5. IBM holds a 1.1% mindshare in APIT, compared to SmartBear’s 3.4% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

IBM Rational Test Workbench

Read 4 IBM Rational Test Workbench reviews

528 Views
238 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

ReadyAPI Test

Read 31 ReadyAPI Test reviews

1,488 Views
1,116 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

IBM Rational Test Workbench

ReadyAPI Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

IBM Rational Test Workbench and ReadyAPI Test compete in the testing tools category. ReadyAPI Test seems to have the upper hand with its straightforward deployment and broad functionalities.

Features: IBM Rational Test Workbench is valued for its robust scripting capabilities, seamless integration with other IBM tools, and extensive test automation features. ReadyAPI Test is recognized for its easy configuration, broad protocol support, and powerful assertion functionalities.

Room for Improvement: IBM Rational Test Workbench could improve in stability, reducing resource consumption, and enhancing its user interface. ReadyAPI Test could improve its reporting capabilities, reduce initial setup complexity, and expand its documentation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM Rational Test Workbench deployment is often complex, yet users find the support comprehensive. ReadyAPI Test provides a straightforward deployment process and responsive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Rational Test Workbench is seen as expensive but offers reliable ROI with its vast features. ReadyAPI Test also represents a significant investment, delivering excellent value for money through its comprehensive functionalities.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 868,787 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

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (20th), Test Automation Tools (36th)

ReadyAPI Test

Ranking in API Testing Tools

10th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (22nd), Regression Testing Tools (10th)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the API Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Rational Test Workbench is 1.1%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 3.4%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

API Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
ReadyAPI Test	3.4%
IBM Rational Test Workbench	1.1%
Other	95.5%

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

Luis Sanchez

Senior Quality Assurance Test Engineer at Dormakaba

Helps in data, regression, performance, security, and functional testing

ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution.

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 solution offers excellent integration capabilities."

"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."

"The tool’s scalability is very good."

"The solution has some good scanning features."

"One good feature is SoapUI's URL check, which allows you to check among the applications. I'm not just talking about the ones for Android. It has all kinds of multi-world tests that are really helpful."

"SoapUI is uncomplicated and user-friendly."

"The utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."

"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."

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."

"There aren't any plugins for UI automation. You need to make a custom code and download a job to put into the libraries. If it were panelized, then it would be straightforward. It should be in a panel of the tools, so you can add those tools as your test step in your test cases."

"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."

"SoapUI would benefit from some more customization abilities. It's a good interface, but it would be nice if they added the ability to build custom dashboards where the user can do their own bar graphs and pie charts."

"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."

"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."

"Automation features are not user-friendly."

"The current interface is unsatisfactory."

"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."

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."

"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."

"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."

"It is free of charge."

"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."

"The cost is not that bad."

"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."

"SoapUI Pro is open source but it has a subscription-based model which involves some more features. At the moment we are using the free version. The Pro version requires a license, and it is an annual license to use it."

"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."

More ReadyAPI Test 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

868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

30%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Non Profit

Government

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

13%

Insurance Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	8
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	19

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about SoapUI Pro?

The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SoapUI Pro?

ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with SoapUI Pro?

See all answers

Comparisons

Postman Enterprise vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 36% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 32% of the time

Perfecto vs IBM Rational Test Workbench

Compared 32% of the time

More IBM Rational Test Workbench Competitors

Postman Enterprise vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 48% of the time

Crosscheck Networks SOAPSonar vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 8% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 8% of the time

ReadyAPI vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 8% of the time

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Performance Testing Tools

September 2025

Download IBM Rational Test Workbench product report

Buyer's Guide

ReadyAPI Test

September 2025

Download ReadyAPI Test product report

Also Known As

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

SoapUI NG 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

For REST, SOAP and other popular API and IoT protocols, SoapUI NG Pro provides the industry's most comprehensive and easy-to-learn functional testing capabilities. Based on open core technology proven by millions of community members, SoapUI NG Pro helps you ensure that your APIs perform as intended, meet your business requirements, timeframes, and team skill sets right from day one.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

Financial Insurance Management Corp.

Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler

Buyer's Guide

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test

September 2025

Free Report: IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Rational Test Workbench vs. ReadyAPI Test report.

See our list of best API Testing 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.