We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Test Workbench and SmartBear TestComplete 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."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"Selenium integration."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"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."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"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."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The integration tools could be better."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Test Workbench is ranked 36th in Test Automation Tools while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 70 reviews. IBM Rational Test Workbench is rated 7.6, while SmartBear TestComplete 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". IBM Rational Test Workbench is most compared with HCL OneTest, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One 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.
