OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."

"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."

"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."

"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."

"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 most valuable features are the object repository."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."

"The solution is very scalable."

"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."

"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."

"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."

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."

"The tool could be a little easier."

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."

"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."