Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

SmartBear and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while OpenText is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.9% 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
  • 529 Views
  • 305 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Silk Test
Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews
  • 773 Views
  • 384 Comparison Views
93% willing to recommend
 

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.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: May 2025).
Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test
May 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 859,129 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
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
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
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.9%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
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
SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
More CrossBrowserTesting pros
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"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."
"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."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
 

Cons

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
More CrossBrowserTesting cons
"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."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The pricing could be improved."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"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."
report
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
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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 Logo
BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 71% of the time
Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 17% of the time
Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 12% of the time
More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 50% of the time
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 15% of the time
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 15% of the time
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 10% of the time
ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 10% of the time
More OpenText Silk Test Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting
June 2025
CrossBrowserTesting reportDownload CrossBrowserTesting product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Test
June 2025
OpenText Silk Test reportDownload 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
May 2025
Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
859,129 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.