Compare IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. SmartBear TestComplete

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use IBM Rational Quality Manager? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
454,950 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"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.""The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."

More IBM Rational Quality Manager Pros »

"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps.""The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools.""The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers.""The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing.""Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well.""The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup.""The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules.""TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."

More SmartBear TestComplete Pros »

Cons
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly.""I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement.""Adding support for uploading a collection of test cases would be a helpful addition."

More IBM Rational Quality Manager Cons »

"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing.""The artificial intelligence needs to be improved.""The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS.""The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation.""The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS.""The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools.""The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced.""Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."

More SmartBear TestComplete Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team.""The option we chose was around $2,000 USD.""The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000.""The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive.""Our ROI is about $10,000 a year.""The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."

More SmartBear TestComplete Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
454,950 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: 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… more »
Top Answer: Clients often ask about monthly licensing fees, however, I'm not sure about how IBM actually charges. For example, I'm unsure as to if it's a yearly or a monthly fee. It's unclear from my end how the… more »
Top Answer: I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement. It might be because of the complexity. They introduce some entities before people learn how these… more »
Top Answer: Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well.
Top Answer: I'm not sure if there are licensing costs involved in the solution. We simply bought the product outright and started using it.
Top Answer: The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS. Right now, Complete can test only on native… more »
Ranking
14th
Views
1,431
Comparisons
828
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
450
Rating
7.7
5th
Views
18,518
Comparisons
12,413
Reviews
9
Average Words per Review
451
Rating
8.1
Popular Comparisons
Also Known As
Rational Quality Manager
Learn
IBM
SmartBear
Overview
IBM Rational Quality Manager is a collaborative hub for business-driven software and systems quality across virtually any platform and type of testing. This software helps teams share information seamlessly, use automation to accelerate project schedules and report on metrics for informed release decisions. Rational Quality Manager helps quality assurance teams collaborate by sharing project information and status updates seamlessly so team members can synchronize teamwork throughout the lifecycle. It helps them automate by reducing labor-intensive activities to accelerate project schedules. In addition, it helps them govern by understanding and reporting on project metrics enabling accurate, reliable and timely release decisions.

TestComplete is a powerful and robust automated testing tool for mobileweb and desktop  applications. Quickly and easily create accurate and repeatable tests across multiple devices, platforms and environments – regardless of experience level. It supports multiple languages, modern control sets and integrates with open source frameworks and tools like Selenium, SoapUI and Jenkins.

Offer
Learn more about IBM Rational Quality Manager
Learn more about SmartBear TestComplete
Sample Customers
Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, BarrCisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company32%
Comms Service Provider20%
Manufacturing Company7%
Government6%
REVIEWERS
Computer Software Company26%
Manufacturing Company11%
Comms Service Provider11%
Financial Services Firm11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company35%
Comms Service Provider13%
Government6%
Media Company5%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business13%
Midsize Enterprise38%
Large Enterprise50%
REVIEWERS
Small Business19%
Midsize Enterprise36%
Large Enterprise45%
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
454,950 professionals have used our research since 2012.

IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 14th in Test Management Tools with 3 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 5th in Test Automation Tools with 11 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Has good integration with the other professional tools but usability needs improvement ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "Easy set up and test creation but the test object repository needs improvement". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, TestRail by Gurock, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and Adaptavist Test Management for Jira, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Ranorex Studio, Katalon Studio, Micro Focus UFT One and Eggplant Functional. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.

See our list of .

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.