We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and IBM Rational Test Workbench based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, Microsoft, IDERA and others in Test Management Tools."The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"It's very reliable as a solution."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"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."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."
"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."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 18th in Performance Testing Tools. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". On the other hand, 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". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Tricentis qTest, whereas IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with HCL OneTest.
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.
