Most Helpful Review
Use Oracle Application Testing Suite? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Functional Tester vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
456,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The ease of use is superior to anything on the market. It's very easy to integrate. We've been very impressed with the tool. Because we primarily use the configuration with SAP, the integration is pretty seamless. But we have used our own in-house VB app as well, and it's worked very well with that."
"We love the Capture 2.0 feature. It seems to work very well."
"The ability to work with the data, with recordsets, and plug those into the scripts is very easy and very powerful. We use it extensively."
"It's script-free, which is really important for our end users because we are usually dealing with colleagues who are not developers and who do not always have the technical background of developing and scripting. It's very useful that there is a nice UI and the tool is script-free."
"One big advantage of Worksoft Certify is its integration with SAP Solution Manager..."
"It is very user-friendly with an appealing UI, unlike a lot of other automation tools that we have evaluated. The fact that it can be used to across SAP and non-SAP applications (including web-based apps) is a big advantage. Using Certify Process Capture functionality has helped in hassle free test design creation, without the need to spend any extra effort to capture test steps and screenshots. The integration elements across HPE ALM and Solution Manager also work well."
"If we write a new test that's 80 percent the same as an existing test, it is pretty straightforward to reuse the steps from existing tests for our new tests and build upon them."
"It is very easy to maintain. With scripts, I can change one line and in one step. Whatever I want, I can do. I don't need to be an expert to use it."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"We do not need a separate test management tool because we have there is a management tool. That is a very good feature. Secondly, it has an inbuilt performance testing tool, which is on flash. It has very good record and playback features as well. And apart from that, there is a good inspection feature. Since it comes with all of the packages, it's very good."
"We like that we don't need a separate management tool. This is a good feature. It also has an inbuilt performance tool which is on Flash. It has very good record and playback feature as well. The inspection tool is also very good. Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts."
"In the past, when we've tried to automate some of our web apps, it has not been as robust. If there were one thing that could be improved, it's interaction with web applications. The issue we were running into is that it was harder to identify the objects than it is with some of the other architectured applications."
"The definitions for the objects need to be automated. They need to be recognized automatically by Worksoft Certify instead of changing them back and forth manually. This is also something that Worksoft is currently working on."
"Our interactions with technical support has not been the best always and there is room for improvement especially with respect to the time taken to respond to cases. However, with the right contacts and reasonable escalations we have always managed to get quick attention on our cases."
"One feature that we have been asking for has been to treat tests as code and store the source code for tests in a configuration management tool. Right now, for version control of testing, it's all internally within the tool. If we have a test of a business process and want to revive that test, our methodology now is purely manual work. We go into the tool, create a copy of the existing test, and call the next one: v2. Now, we have two of them and the only way you can tell them apart is by its naming convention."
"I would like to see the impact analysis integrated with the performance testing tool. We have multiple tools doing multiple items. I would like to have one common tool."
"We are looking for some enhancements on the Capture 2.0 tool. This would give us the ability to control it directly, like we could with Capture 1.0. Right now, Capture 2.0 doesn't really work for our Business Analysts."
"There was a change to Capture 2.0. In the end, there have been some challenges with the newer version. Therefore, the company testers, the local ones, do not want to use Capture 2.0."
"When it is unstable, there will be times when a test that we are running in Certify will just stop, and it will say, "Aborted." There will be errors. There will be no explanation as to why it happens. It has now happened maybe one out of 20 times. When it happens, I just tell our QA team to stop Certify and restart it, hoping we don't see it again."
"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."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The pathfinding at times is slow when we are using it. The tool's performance can be improved."
"The dashboards need to be simplified and made more user-friendly."
Pricing and Cost Advice
"We would purchase more licenses right now if they were cheaper. Pricing is a little bit of a hindrance."
"It is expensive compared to some of the other automation tools in the market. However, the benefits and ROI has proved that it has been a good investment."
"The initial upfront cost in terms of licenses, plus all the money that we spent developing tests, has proven it's worth. Now, we can do a regression test suite in ten days as opposed to sixteen weeks."
"Our ROI is primarily a reduction in testing time. The testing, when we were doing it manually, was 30 to 40 percent of the project's cost."
"We ended up buying too many licenses. They were very good at selling it to us, and probably oversold it a little. We bought 45 licenses and have never used more than twenty. However, they gave us a pretty significant discount on the bigger license, so it made sense for us to buy enough that we wouldn't have to go back and ask for more."
"We could use Certify to do robotic process automation, which is basically running a process on your correction system instead of your test system. Therefore, we may do that in the future."
"By using automation, it reduced about 75 percent of the time when compared to any other tool."
"Saving money and better quality, these are the benefits of Certify."
"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."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: It does allow for good reusability. When it's designed properly and utilized properly, we can put things in a way that… more »
Top Answer: The licensing is yearly.
Top Answer: It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good.
Top Answer: Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000… more »
Top Answer: If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility. There needs to be more… more »
Is Oracle Application Testing Suite or Micro Focus UFT One better for automating Oracle Fusion Ap...
Top Answer: Definitely OATS is an ideal tool for automation of oracle applications Oracle Fusion is developed using Oracle ADF… more »
Top Answer: The most valuable features are functional testing and the central repository that contains various scripts.
Top Answer: There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.
Compared 32% of the time.
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Compared 24% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 11% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Also Known As
|Rational Functional Tester||OATS|
|Worksoft is a leading global provider of automation software for high-velocity business process testing and discovery. Enterprises worldwide use Worksoft intelligent automation to innovate faster, lower technology risk, reduce costs, improve quality, and deeply understand their real end-to-end business processes. Global 5000 companies across all industries choose Worksoft for high speed process discovery and functional testing of digital, web, cloud, mobile, big data, and dozens of enterprise applications, including SAP, Oracle, and Salesforce.com.||IBM Rational Functional Tester is an automated functional testing and regression testing tool. This software provides automated testing capabilities for functional, regression, GUI, and data-driven testing. Rational Function Tester supports a range of applications, such as web-based, .Net, Java, Siebel, SAP, terminal emulator-based applications, PowerBuilder, Ajax, Adobe Flex, Dojo Toolkit, GEF, Adobe PDF documents, zSeries, iSeries, and pSeries.||Application Testing Suite is a comprehensive, integrated testing solution that ensures the quality, scalability, and availability of your Web applications, Web Services, packaged Oracle Applications and Oracle databases.|
Learn more about Worksoft Certify
Learn more about IBM Rational Functional Tester
Learn more about Oracle Application Testing Suite
|Kraft, Reliant Energy, Richemont, Applied Materials, Siemens PLM, Mosaic, Dow Corning, ebay, IBM, Accenture, Fortis BC, US Government, Southwest Airlines||Edumate||Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries|
Consumer Goods Company13%
Computer Software Company36%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm7%
Computer Software Company32%
Comms Service Provider16%
Financial Services Firm5%
Computer Software Company45%
Comms Service Provider13%
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 24th in Functional Testing Tools with 3 reviews while Oracle Application Testing Suite is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 6.6, while Oracle Application Testing Suite is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Good coverage and compatibility with excellent stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Application Testing Suite writes "Doesn't require a separate management tool but it is lacking support ". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Micro Focus UFT One, Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest and Micro Focus UFT Developer, whereas Oracle Application Testing Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Micro Focus UFT One, Katalon Studio and Eggplant Functional. See our IBM Rational Functional Tester vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite report.
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.