BrowserStack vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

BrowserStack and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.3, while OpenText is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 1.0% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 25 BrowserStack reviews

5,813 Views
4,866 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

872 Views
544 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and BrowserStack compete in the software testing category. BrowserStack appears to have the upper hand due to its extensive real-device testing support and rich feature set, making it compelling for buyers prioritizing comprehensive testing.

Features: OpenText Silk Test offers comprehensive automation testing with robust scripting, cross-platform capabilities, and detailed analytics. BrowserStack provides unmatched real-device testing, versatile browser selections, and seamless integration with CI/CD tools.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could improve in simplifying its setup process, broadening browser support, and enhancing real-device testing capabilities. BrowserStack might benefit from more user customization options, improved performance for slower connections, and a wider array of reporting features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test requires a detailed setup process but offers strong customer service support. BrowserStack’s cloud-based model facilitates quick setup, and its intuitive platform reduces dependency on service assistance during initial deployment.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test demands significant initial setup investment, offering moderate ROI over time with its automation benefits. BrowserStack, though pricier, provides compelling ROI due to its real-device access and vast functionality, appealing to those valuing feature-rich real-time testing.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Silk Test

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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:

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

19th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (19th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.4%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.0%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users

I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

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

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."

"The integration is very good."

"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."

"I like that it offers full device capability."

"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."

"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."

More BrowserStack pros

"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 statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

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

"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."

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

Cons

"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."

"I would like to see clearer visibility."

"We are struggling to do local testing."

"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."

"We had some execution issues."

"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."

"There is room for improvement in pricing."

More BrowserStack cons

"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."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."

"The price is fine."

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"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."

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

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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Computer Software Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?

My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.

See all answers

What needs improvement with BrowserStack?

I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.

See all answers

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 systems.

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 33% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 18% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 4% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 51% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 14% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 14% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

April 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

April 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

No data available

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

BrowserStack

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

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

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

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. OpenText Silk Test

April 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. OpenText Silk Test

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. OpenText Silk Test report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing 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.