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

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Digital.ai and OpenText are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. Digital.ai is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0. Digital.ai holds a 0.4% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 66% of Digital.ai users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText users who would recommend it.
Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Read 3 Digital.ai Continuous Testing reviews
  • 290 Views
  • 202 Comparison Views
66% willing to recommend
OpenText Silk Test
Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews
  • 693 Views
  • 436 Comparison Views
93% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and Digital.ai Continuous Testing compete in the test automation space. Digital.ai Continuous Testing likely has the upper hand due to its advanced features and rapid deployment capabilities.

Features: OpenText Silk Test supports a wide array of browsers and platforms, distributed test execution capabilities, and is suitable for diverse environments. Digital.ai Continuous Testing features robust integration with CI/CD pipelines, advanced analytics for actionable insights, and a comprehensive suite for continuous testing.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Digital.ai Continuous Testing integrates seamlessly with existing development workflows, offering fast deployment speed and efficient processes. Its customer support is praised for quick response times and helpful guidance. OpenText Silk Test offers stable deployment, though it requires more setup time due to its complex configuration, which may affect project timelines.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test has a predictable pricing model, making it appealing to budget-conscious buyers with affordable licensing and comprehensive support, offering potential for a positive ROI. Digital.ai Continuous Testing, despite a higher initial cost, justifies the investment through significant time savings and increased productivity, providing strong ROI for enterprises focused on rapid and continuous test environments.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: April 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Digital.ai Continuous Testing 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

Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (9th), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (2nd)
OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (19th), Regression Testing Tools (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 0.4%, down from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Alan Chiou - PeerSpot reviewer
Has Mobile Studio feature which can generate scripts
The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version.
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

"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing. They also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"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 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."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
 

Cons

"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"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."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"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 Test Automation 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
22%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Retailer
11%
Insurance Company
9%
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I...
See all answers
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
I'm using Digital.ai Continuous Testing to create and test a mobile application. We're developing and testing a mobile app.
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

BrowserStack vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing Logo
BrowserStack vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Compared 47% of the time
Perfecto vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing Logo
Perfecto vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Compared 30% of the time
LambdaTest vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing Logo
LambdaTest vs Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Compared 23% of the time
More Digital.ai Continuous Testing Competitors
OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 51% of the time
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 14% of the time
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 14% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 12% 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
ConformIQ Creator vs. Digital.ai Continuous Testing
April 2025
Digital.ai Continuous Testing reportDownload Digital.ai Continuous Testing product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Test
April 2025
OpenText Silk Test reportDownload OpenText Silk Test product report
 

Also Known As

Experitest Seetest, Experitest
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

Experitest's continuous testing solutions enable enterprises to reduce risk and provide their customers satisfying, error-free experiences across all devices and browsers. They seamlessly integrate with best-in-class tools throughout the DevOps pipeline allowing organizations to rapidly deliver highly protected, quality applications at-speed and at-scale.

Digital.ai
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

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Buyer's Guide
Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test
April 2025
Free Report: Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test
Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Automation 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.