We performed a comparison between HeadSpin and IBM Rational Functional Tester based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The initial setup of HeadSpin was very easy and user-friendly. It was easy to configure and write a script."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions. It is great. I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin. It's very useful."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
HeadSpin is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews while IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. HeadSpin is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of HeadSpin writes "It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". HeadSpin is most compared with Perfecto, Sauce Labs, BrowserStack, pCloudy and Tricentis Tosca, whereas IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Worksoft Certify.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional 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.
