We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench and OpenText Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Test Automation Tools."This solution provides for API testing, functional UI testing, performance testing, and service virtualization."
"Reporting is pretty good. Its interface is also good. I'm overall pretty happy with the functionality and use of IBM Rational Test Workbench."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"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."
"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."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 36th in Test Automation Tools while OpenText Silk Test is ranked 24th in Test Automation Tools. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with HCL OneTest, whereas OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
