IBM Rational Policy Tester vs PractiTest comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
IBM Logo
47 views|36 comparisons
PractiTest Logo
513 views|389 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Policy Tester and PractiTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Test Management Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
  • "Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
  • More PractiTest Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Ranking
    32nd
    Views
    47
    Comparisons
    36
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    14th
    Views
    513
    Comparisons
    389
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Buyer's Guide
    Test Management Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Rational Policy Tester
    Learn More
    Overview
    IBM Rational Policy Tester audits websites for issues impacting compliance and effectiveness. Policy Tester drives significant cost out of the online operation by automating manual processes and identifying and prioritizing issues for immediate resolution.

    Manage your QA and Testing process, controlling your testing tasks while getting complete visibility into your results, and most importantly releasing your products in a professional way

    Professional end to end QA management for your manual and automation testing. 
    • Create your manual tests and organize them based on cycles, sprints, etc.
    • Seamlessly integrate your manual testing with your automation and CI processes.
    • Reuse tests and correlate results across different releases and products.
    • Release your products with confidence and control.


    Sample Customers
    Ilmarinen, Brazilian Lymphoma and Leukemia Society, Government of South Australia Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Swiss Export Risk Insurance, The Motorists Insurance Group, Nuance Communications Inc.
    Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman
    Top Industries
    No Data Available
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company15%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Healthcare Company8%
    Company Size
    No Data Available
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business29%
    Midsize Enterprise57%
    Large Enterprise14%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise68%
    Buyer's Guide
    Test Management Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    IBM Rational Policy Tester is ranked 32nd in Test Management Tools while PractiTest is ranked 14th in Test Management Tools. IBM Rational Policy Tester is rated 0.0, while PractiTest is rated 8.8. On the other hand, the top reviewer of PractiTest writes "Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization". IBM Rational Policy Tester is most compared with , whereas PractiTest is most compared with TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise, Jira and Microsoft Azure DevOps.

    See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

    We monitor all Test Management 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.