IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Silk Test vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #29, while OpenText is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. IBM holds a 1.2% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 1.2% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM DevOps Test UI

Read 8 IBM DevOps Test UI reviews

655 Views
511 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

926 Views
704 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Tricentis Tosca

Read 112 Tricentis Tosca reviews

20,328 Views
11,180 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

IBM DevOps Test UI

OpenText Silk Test

Tricentis Tosca

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM DevOps Test UI, OpenText Silk Test, and Tricentis Tosca based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: October 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

October 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 872,837 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.2%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.2%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 17.6%, down from 18.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Tricentis Tosca	17.6%
OpenText Silk Test	1.2%
IBM DevOps Test UI	1.2%
Other	80.0%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Hellen Zhang

Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada

Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support

The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.

Read full review

SrinivasPakala

Director Consulting Expert at Cgi Deutschland KG

Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available

While we are performance testing the engineering key, we need to come up with load strategies to commence the test. We'll help to monitor the test, and afterward, we'll help to make all the outcomes, and if they are new, we'll do lots and lots of interpretation and analysis across various servers, to look at response times, and impact. For example, whatever the observations we had during the test, we need to implement it. We'll have to help to catch what exactly is the issues were, and we'll help to see how they can be reduced. Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are. The solution needs better monitoring, especially of CPU.

Read full review

PrabhuKrishnamoorthy

Senior Director at Ascendion

Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features

The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."

"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."

"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."

"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."

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

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

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

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"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 Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."

"We are satisfied with the support of Tricentis."

"Object Identification Wizard."

"It can provide all levels of testing from design to execution to reporting."

"The platform's most valuable feature is model-based testing, which is effective for test case design and optimization."

"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."

"It's stable and reliable."

"This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated."

More Tricentis Tosca pros

Cons

"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."

"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."

"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."

"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."

"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."

"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."

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."

"The pricing could be improved."

"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."

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

"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."

"First, Tricentis could improve Tosca's Linux scripting. We can automate Linux scripting, but there are a few commands that Tosca doesn't support. DVS support and the object identification mechanism could also be better."

"When using it with iOS devices, I cannot start automation directly and must use a remote machine."

"It can be quite expensive."

"The Vision AI implementation works very slowly, affecting the speed of our work."

"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."

"The solution needs to improve its simulation of mobile environments. Right now, that aspect is really lacking."

"With regard to areas of improvement, report customization should be easier. It would be good if Tosca could provide standard reports for at least 20 variants. At present, there are only three to four variants. The mobile engine needs to be faster and easier to use; it is a bit cumbersome. Also, the object identification in the mobile engine needs improvement. I would like to see easy-to-use customizations for reports in the next release."

More Tricentis Tosca cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."

"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."

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

"I give the cost of Tricentis Tosca a six out of seven."

"A competitor of Tricentis Tosca: Katalon Studio, is very similar and offers lower pricing, though Tricentis Tosca offers more features and benefits."

"Although the product is slightly more expensive than tools, its automation capabilities and reduced scripting needs justify the cost."

"I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to talk about the pricing, but it has some significant costs. For example, you have to pay a license and maintenance fee. Then the rest of the terms are negotiable. We have to consider what we need and what benefit we get from it."

"It is an expensive tool compared to other test automation tools. It has a lot of advantages over other tools."

"Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked."

"In terms of the licensing costs for Tricentis Tosca, we are spending more or less $70,000 per year. We have a very complex mechanism because there are some business users and some BI users, so the licensing structure is not simple, but support is included."

More Tricentis Tosca pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

872,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

22%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Government

10%

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	5

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	23
Midsize Enterprise	24
Large Enterprise	71

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Silk Test?

The pricing depends on the license used. The pricing is similar to others in the market.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Silk Test?

The pricing could be improved.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Silk Test?

The product is used for manual, functional, and performance testing. I'm using the tool for loading data into ERP sys...

See all answers

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?

We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus...

See all answers

How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?

Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is...

See all answers

What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?

For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 20% of the time

Selenium HQ vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 19% of the time

Katalon Studio vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 19% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 13% of the time

HCL OneTest vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 7% of the time

More IBM DevOps Test UI Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 29% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 17% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 15% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Worksoft Certify vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 8% of the time

Testim vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 7% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 6% of the time

More Tricentis Tosca Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

October 2025

Download IBM DevOps Test UI product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

October 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis Tosca

October 2025

Download Tricentis Tosca product report

Also Known As

IBM Rational Functional Tester

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Orchestrated Service Virtualization

Overview

IBM DevOps Test UI, also known as Rational Functional Tester, is a software tool designed for automated functional and regression testing of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and data-driven testing. It automates the testing process to ensure application functionalities work as intended and identifies any issues caused by new code changes. The tool is tailored for GUI testing, allowing for easy recording and playback of test cases that interact with UI elements like buttons and menus. It supports data-driven testing, enabling comprehensive tests across various data sets. Additionally, it offers visual editing features with screenshot representations for easy test creation and ScriptAssure technology to maintain test scripts even if the UI changes.

IBM

SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.

OpenText

Tricentis Tosca offers model-based testing that supports both technical and non-technical users through a user-friendly interface, enabling scriptless automation and seamless integration with UI and non-UI applications.

Tosca's modular approach enhances test maintenance and reuse while delivering comprehensive automation for diverse testing environments. Backed by risk-based testing and automated data management, it supports end-to-end testing across API, SAP, and desktop applications. Tosca's integration capabilities extend to environments like Salesforce, PHP webshops, and mobile apps, effectively enhancing Agile team workflows. Despite its strengths, room remains for improved reporting, object recognition, and more efficient upgrade processes. Enhancing documentation and mobile testing support could further elevate its functionality for many.

What key features does Tricentis Tosca offer?

User-friendly interface: Simplifies interactions for non-technical users.
Model-based testing: Facilitates the easy creation of automated test cases.
Scriptless automation: Enables quick test development without coding.
Integration capabilities: Supports connections with multiple platforms like SAP and Salesforce.
Modular approach: Enhances the reuse and maintenance of test components.

What benefits to expect from Tricentis Tosca?

Efficiency: Streamlines the testing process for faster release cycles.
Versatility: Suitable for diverse application environments including web and desktop.
Productivity: Boosts Agile team integration for comprehensive testing.
Risk-based testing: Prioritizes testing efforts based on potential impact.

In retail, Tricentis Tosca automates inventory and transaction testing, ensuring efficient system updates. Financial services employ it for regulatory compliance through automated test scenarios in mainframe and PDF environments. Telecommunication companies utilize Tosca for API testing, aligning services across network platforms seamlessly.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

Edumate

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies

HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

October 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: October 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

872,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.