We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench and Postman based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Postman, Tricentis, Apache and others in API Testing Tools."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."
"Postman allows you to incorporate and export the test cases we create. It enables me to share the test cases with my colleagues, so I don't have to copy them into an Excel sheet. Postman lets me export the dataset and share it with my team. They can use my test case for their testing."
"The initial setup is simple."
"We can test APIs. We know if they are functional or throwing any errors."
"The most valuable feature is that JavaScript can be included as tests."
"I like that it is very easy to use. I also like the automation feature."
"What is most valuable for me is that we can create and share collections between the team members."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Collections."
"Postman helps us to automate the API testing in the team."
"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."
"If there is any way to have a record and playback feature through UI, as we do in Selenium and IDEs such as Eclipse, it would be great."
"If they could implement auto-validations and assertions from SoapUI, that would be a very good feature."
"Postman could be improved by providing options for performance testing of APIs."
"The scalability of the solution can be improved."
"The request encryption could be one thing on which they can work a little bit. If we don't want to expose our production data but we still want to test our APIs on the production data, there should be a way to do that. It is not only with Postman. I think no tool in the market is doing that right now."
"I rate the support for Postman a four out of five."
"I would like to see improvements in the maintenance of the scripts and their collections. It is really painful that the user cannot drag and drop. It was also painful to create the standard suite of operations for the product. I am not sure if this is improved in the tool’s latest versions. The maintenance of the complex scenarios prompted us to use the solution only for unit testing. In the future, we may switch to the k6 framework."
"There is no support for the testing of the SOAP APIs."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 12th in API Testing Tools while Postman is ranked 1st in API Testing Tools with 52 reviews. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while Postman is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Test Workbench writes "Good reporting and interface, but supports limited types of protocols and requires low-level script editing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Postman writes "Reliable and easy to expand with a helpful API network". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with , whereas Postman is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and Apigee.
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.