IBM DevOps Test UI offers robust automation testing features that support .NET and Java scripting. It integrates with IBM Rational Performance Tester and supports various applications, making regression testing and automation efficient.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| IBM DevOps Test UI | 1.6% |
| Tricentis Tosca | 9.9% |
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.1% |
| Other | 81.4% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 1 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 3 |
| Large Enterprise | 4 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 47 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 17 |
| Large Enterprise | 25 |
IBM DevOps Test UI provides powerful object identification and third-party library integration. It adapts well to automation testing needs and integrates with testing management tools, including compatibility with Siebel, SAP, and more. Users perceive it as easy to implement and highly compatible with technology stacks, enabling enhanced automation efficiency. While improvements are needed in mobile app UI analysis and Linux application compatibility, it remains a strong choice for teams focused on automation testing.
What features make IBM DevOps Test UI stand out?IBM DevOps Test UI is employed extensively for website functionality testing and database integration. Entities within banking and telecom sectors frequently use it for test automation and data creation, often pairing it with IBM Rational Functional Tester to effectively meet testing demands.
IBM DevOps Test UI was previously known as IBM Rational Functional Tester.
Edumate
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada | 4.0 | I use IBM Rational Functional Tester for test automation, which saves time and provides accurate results. Its stability is good, and support is helpful. However, I find the latest version has increased load times. |
| Associate Vice President at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees | 2.5 | I found IBM Rational Functional Tester contextual and compatible, but it's now outdated and needs a complete revamp for non-technical users. With better open-source alternatives available, I no longer recommend RFT, suggesting RPT instead. |
| CEO at Xcelliti | 4.0 | I find IBM Rational Functional Tester stable, scalable, and compatible with various applications. Setup was simple, and support is great. My main concerns are Linux compatibility issues and the expensive licensing. I rate it 8/10, recommending evaluation first. |
| Test Specialist at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees | 3.5 | I use IBM RFT for website UI testing, valuing its component tester. Its stability is okay, but setup is complex. My main concern is its lack of mobile app support, which is crucial as my products move to mobile. |
| Test Team Lead at a healthcare company with 501-1,000 employees | 3.5 | I find IBM RFT easy to use, stable, and it offers good object recognition compared to QTP. However, the object repository needs improvement as it sometimes fails to identify objects, requiring manual effort. |
| Senior Consultant at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I find IBM RFT excellent for functional testing of thick client applications. Its robust API, descriptive programming, fast execution, and object identification make it a lightweight and cost-effective solution compared to others. |
| Software Engineering Senior Analyst at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 3.5 | I've used this product for over four years, automating regression and saving 1200 hours annually. While setup was easy, I experienced crashes and seek better integration with test management tools and more browser support. |
| Technical Lead - QA at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees | 3.5 | I find this stable tool supports Siebel/SAP, handles volume, and has good tech support. Installation is easy. While reports are poor and it has memory issues, I recommend it as a cheaper, effective Worksoft Certify replacement. |
The solution is used for test automation, and test data creation.
The solution has provided more accurate results with database verification.
Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time.
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework.
The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.
I have used the solution within the last 12 months.
The solution's stability is good.
The support team is helpful. They have a quick one-day turnaround time.
Microsoft Azure was previously used, and compared to IBM Rational Functional Tester it was a more lightweight solution.
I rate IBM Rational Functional Tester eight out of ten.
We provide this solution and others like it to our customers. We have implemented IBM Rational Functional Tester for at least 10 to 15 customers between banking and telecom.
IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual. It is highly compatible across technologies. It supports and interacts with model applications as well. That's why we went ahead and implemented RFT.
There are also a lot of new tools, technology, and new frameworks that have come into the picture.
RFT needs to think from a contemporary point of view — from the current context. They need to look at the way they're positioning the tool. They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool. These are the aspects IBM needs to look into it. The moment they look into it, I think they might come up with something new, which can be contextual to the current needs and demands.
We've been actively using this tool from 2010 onwards.
The technical support is good; at least their response time is good. We have been partners with IBM for the last 10 years. We raise tickets and go through the process and whenever we ask them for help — regarding deployment customizations, custom code implementation or other code needs —, they heavily support us. They assign us IT engineers who work alongside us, helping us with code-related issues. They stay until the problem is resolved. The support is quite good.
Automation has two aspects: what is the tool you are using? and what is the framework you are using to implement it? I think it is always the framework that is standard, and our framework is far more in line with the RFT. That's how we managed to implement it so easily. At the time, it was more data-driven. There weren't a lot of parameters, we could just go ahead and execute many things. On the other hand, we couldn't do distributor programming or schedule dictation. These are problems that we used to have, just like any other conventional automation. Otherwise, it used to work really well on the web-based hi-interactive mode application. That was one of the selling points for us.
Today, I don't think anyone is interested in RFT because currently, there are a lot of open-source tools on the market. There are a lot of tools out there and customers want the best solutions available. If there is a more advanced solution that can support multiple applications, then the customer will choose that solution. I honestly don't think customers are interested in RFT.
Customers are not open to change. Some people are overconfident when going through a change, and others don't like the idea at all. This is especially true for older organizations — they don't see a need to change. I don't see any reason why customers have not moved ahead. We ourselves are telling people that it's time to move ahead from RFT. It's not a vote against RFT or something like that, the technology as a whole just needs change. RFT definitely is not in line with the times, but I haven't heard anything from IBM regarding new technology or a new tool which is far more robust and easier to manage.
If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available. I would, however, recommend RPT because their workbench has some principal components, including RFT. My recommendation is to go with RPT — we might be doing so in the near future. RPT in certain circumstances still has an edge.
On a scale from one to ten, I would give RFT a rating of five.
We use the solution for database integration.
It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good.
The regression testing is very good.
If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility.
There needs to be more effort made to make the solution more relevant to the application.
We have only been using the IBM Rational Functional Tester for 10 days now. It really hasn't been that long. It's a very new solution for us.
The solution is quite stable. We haven't run into issues to stability. We haven't faced any bugs or crashes.
The solution is very scalable. Companies can easily expand if they need to.
We use the solution on a daily basis. It's used quite often in our company.
We've been in touch with technical support and found them to be very helpful. We're satisfied with the level of support we've gotten so far. It is not user-dependent or region dependent. Wherever you are, you can take any support from the nearby region.
I've tried other solutions as well, but IBM is very good. We are very satisfied with IBM, though there are other similar tools available. The problem with them is that they do not cover many things the way IBM does. Often they do one task and then you have to connect them with something else in other to get what you need. It's much better to have a stable product with the full support and scalability required all in one place.
The initial setup was very simple. We didn't face any complexities and found it to be quite straightforward.
Deployment only took about two weeks for the light users. If a person installing the solution knows about something about automation, it can probably be done in two to three days.
We actually provide services so we won't use any help from any outside integrators or vendors.
Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price.
Implementing it requires a real license. If you have more than two to three people, they can do it, but they can only use a single-user license. For the maintenance process, if there are one or two people available in our organization who look to handle three to six projects, they will each need a license and we'll divide the projects so one person will handle two to three projects themselves under their license.
We're IBM partners, not resellers. We handle large-scale enterprise projects.
I can't recall what version number we have right now, but we are using the current version of RFT.
It is 100% compatible with all sorts of database integrations and is compatible with all types of open source TFT-based applications, which makes it a great product to have.
I'd advise others to first evaluate the product. IBM provides new users with a 30 or 60-day evaluation period whereby companies can try out the solution. Companies should leverage this and use the product and all of its tools. They will be able to make all sorts of scripts. It will give users a lot of good hands-on experience to get a feel for IBM. If it works well, they can then get a license.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall.
We use this solution to test our website functionality.
Using this solution has saved me time and effort in writing tests, in particular for UI elements in websites.
The most valuable feature is the UI component tester. It analyzes the changes in UI elements and allows me to automatically adapt and change my automation testing.
This product can be integrated into other testing management products, such as IBM Rational Performance Tester, as part of the development lifecycle.
I would like to see the UI change analysis functionality for mobile apps.
I have been using IBM Rational Functional Tester for three to four years.
The stability is ok. Our usage is common and we have not experienced very many bugs or problems. It is used only on an occasional basis, for now. As we have been moving our product to a mobile environment, we are not using it as often. If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less.
I think that scalability should be enhanced to support mobile applications.
We have fewer than ten people using this solution in my company.
The technical support for this solution is okay.
Prior to using IBM Rational Functional Tester, we used testing software by HP. It was the Unit Functional Tester and HP Quality Center that were later purchased by Micro Focus. I do not know the reasons that we switched to IBM.
The initial setup is a little bit complex. We searched online for some information to assist with the installation and configuration.
Many of my colleagues do not want to install the software on their PC. Rather, they want to use it from a web browser in client/server mode.
The deployment takes only five to ten minutes.
I installed this software on my own, as have many of my colleagues.
As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support.
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
It is easy to implement and use.
It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market.
The object repository used for identifying objects can be made better. It has been noticed that the RFT tool is unable to identify some objects, due to which we are unable to add them to the object repository. In this case, the user has to manually add the objects to the object repository. This takes time and effort. It would be good if RFT was able to create a framework to identify objects that are not recognized by the tool.
I have used RFT for two years.
We have not had any problems. It is mostly stable.
We haven’t had scalability issues. We used it for 5-10 users and there was no issue in scalability.
Support was good. They used to provide solutions when we got stuck.
We used HPE QTP and found IBM RFT to have better object recognition.
Setup was not complex. You can read the documentation and do the set up.
Pricing is on the higher side, but lower compared to Mercury tools.
We already had worked on QTP, so we had an idea of the same.
Free open source software like Selenium is available in the market, which as good as any propitiatory tool.
1. IBM RFT supports both .NET and Java as the programming language for scripting, but the market widely usage was Java language because of the open-source platform.
2. Descriptive programming for functional test case made easy with robust API.
3. 3rd party library integration.
4. Eclipse IDE.
5. Execution made faster than compared to other commercial tools.
6. Robust object identification mechanism.
Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly.
Didn't find any since they provide light weight usage for execution and script development without tool dependency than compared to other commercial products.
Almost 5 years starting from RFT 8.0 - 8.3 version.
No.
No.
No this product is for functional testing not applicable for scalability.
No.
Pretty straightforward.
Through in-hose team.
One time license cost involved and pretty less than compared to the other commercial products.
Use this product for thick client application like sap, siebel, flex etc
It gives us an ability to support object recognition and descriptive programming.
By automating regression test suites using this product, we were able to show time savings of more than 1200 hours in less than ONE year.
I've used it for over four years.
No issues encountered.
1. With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently.
2. We keep getting Java Binary exceptions when we execute batch runs with RFT
No issues encountered.
Good.
Technical Support:Good.
Based on low license cost and project decision we moved to this product.
The initial setup was easy.
It was implemented by me for multiple in-house projects.
1200 hours in one year.
Yes. we evaluated QTP.
It is a good option if you have tie up with IBM and if your test management suite consists of rational products.
It supports:
Reports - Default results log has a lot of useless info, and this is hiding the actual information needed. I have to use customized reports, which we don't expect from paid tool.
Eight months.
Installation is straight forward.
Quiet stable but it has memory issues frequently, which can be solved easily.
It is able to handle volume.
Haven't contacted customer service so far.
Technical Support:Good, encountered a problem and a solution was provided by tech support within a couple of days.
We were replacing an expensive solution - Worksoft Certify.
Installation is straight forward.
In-house team.
It's cheaper than our existing solution, Worksoft Certify
Organization bought the whole Rational Suite at a very low price.
It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement. But as it is built on Ellipse/Java and costs is less than other tools, it is recommended.
