CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #27, while OpenText is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. SmartBear holds a 1.3% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

727 Views
625 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,149 Views
827 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and CrossBrowserTesting are competing products in software testing. CrossBrowserTesting frequently emerges as the preferred choice due to its robust feature set and end-to-end testing solutions, despite OpenText Silk Test receiving positive feedback for pricing and support.

Features: OpenText Silk Test offers comprehensive automation frameworks, support for various application platforms, and distributed test runs. CrossBrowserTesting provides advanced cross-browser testing, mobile testing capabilities, and the ability to test across multiple real-world devices.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could improve by enhancing mobile testing integration, modernizing its user interface, and expanding its browser compatibility. CrossBrowserTesting may benefit from improving the loading speed of screenshots, expanding support for older browsers, and enhancing the efficiency of its record and replay functions.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test supports a structured deployment process with comprehensive support services. CrossBrowserTesting offers a seamless cloud-based deployment, facilitating quicker testing access and providing responsive customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test may require a higher initial investment but offers significant ROI through automation and precision. CrossBrowserTesting provides a more affordable setup with cost-effective, broad-spectrum testing, delivering quick ROI through its adaptability and resource efficiency.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

27th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (17th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.5%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Silk Test	1.5%
CrossBrowserTesting	1.3%
Other	97.2%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

CharlesNetshivhera

Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable

We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…

Read full review

Jose Alfredo Garcia

Manager of Central Excellence at Alpura

Easy to set up with good documentation and easy management of testing cycles

The solution allows for a complete test cycle. The management of testing cycles are easy. We have good control over test cases. We can capture functional testing very easily. We're actually able to accelerate testing now and have end-to-end cycles for testing. We didn't used to have these capabilities. It's easy to automate and accelerate testing. The product offers very good cross-browser testing capabilities. We can do continuous testing and regression testing.

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

"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."

"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."

"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."

"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."

"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."

"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."

"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."

"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

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

"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."

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

"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."

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

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

Cons

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

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

"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."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."

"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."

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Performing Arts

Government

University

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

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

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 systems.

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 31% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 9% of the time

LambdaTest vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 8% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 7% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 18% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 9% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

January 2026

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

January 2026

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

No data available

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.

SmartBear

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

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

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

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test

January 2026

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting 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.