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

IBM Engineering Test Management vs OpenText Silk Central comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
8.2
IBM Engineering Test Management improves efficiency, reduces defects, integrates well with IBM software, enhancing workflow and providing cost savings.
Sentiment score
1.0
OpenText Silk Central enhances test management, project visibility, and collaboration, leading to reduced costs, faster delivery, and higher productivity.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.1
IBM Engineering Test Management's customer support is praised for responsiveness and effectiveness, with improvements in response times and satisfactory experiences.
Sentiment score
6.3
OpenText Silk Central is praised for its responsive, knowledgeable customer service, efficient technical support, and quick response times.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.7
IBM Engineering Test Management scales smoothly for large organizations with thousands of users and test cases, including automated ones.
Sentiment score
1.0
OpenText Silk Central is praised for scalability, flexibility, robust performance, supporting diverse projects, extensive collaboration, and seamless system integration.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
6.9
IBM Engineering Test Management is reliable and stable, with good performance but occasionally impacted by server configuration and database space issues.
Sentiment score
1.0
OpenText Silk Central is reliable, handles extensive workloads, scales with business growth, and provides stable performance with minimal downtime.
 

Room For Improvement

IBM Engineering Test Management requires a user-friendly interface, enhanced usability, data handling, hierarchical structuring, and seamless integration with automated pipelines.
Users suggest improvements for OpenText Silk Central in reporting, integration, setup, test environment support, performance, and navigation.
It is designed more for Waterfall than Agile, so it is not as efficient as it could be.
Senior Test Analyst at Kainga Ora
 

Setup Cost

<p>IBM Engineering Test Management provides robust features and customization with flexible pricing, ideal for large enterprises needing comprehensive test management.</p>
<p>OpenText Silk Central provides enterprise pricing options, balancing initial costs with comprehensive features, support, and significant return on investment.</p>
 

Valuable Features

IBM Engineering Test Management is praised for fast, reliable customizable workflows, and robust integrations, particularly in testing and tracking functionality.
OpenText Silk Central excels in test management, tool integration, reporting, ease of use, customization, automation, and effective large-scale test case management.
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Engineering Test Manage...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
16th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (16th)
OpenText Silk Central
Ranking in Test Management Tools
13th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
2.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of IBM Engineering Test Management is 3.1%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 2.4%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Silk Central2.4%
IBM Engineering Test Management3.1%
Other94.5%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team
IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then put all the test cases, and put all the build code for the shared location. And then rational that shared location means that RQM has access to the shared location. So, when we execute, if a test case is automated, we can run it from RQM. We need to have the environment ready for it to execute. Once we have that, then we can select the task case. So, by clicking on one button, the other environment is automatically plugged in. Then test results will be automatically transferred back to our RQM. So, in RQM, we can view it, and it is integrated. So we can run the test and the automation from RQM, and the test results will come back. Azure DevOps first test case is there, but then we tried to use Selenium to do half automation. Still, we realized that it wouldn't have the integration. We could do something in the pipeline, but it fires the Selenium test automation code. But then the test results won't be brought back or added to AzureDesk DevOps. That's something that I do hope that there can be another other system that can have this kind of integration. RQM can be improved because it's not related to our server and could be faster. We need to find out how much database storage is needed and keep increasing it. We heard that the latest version of RQM can clean up some old ones and give the same test result. But that one feature we are yet to use. It's a setting that we can set up, and then it goes automatically or gives me the choice to do it manually.
ChrisWilliams1 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Test Analyst at Kainga Ora
Reporting efficacy and collaboration improve despite outdated features
I do this for my own benefit, and it has nothing to do with any company views. I work as a permanent employee for a government department. OpenText Silk Central is coming to the end of its support, so we will have to move to something else, but I do not know what the other solution will be. Automation is quite immature at our place. It has only really started, so there is no integration with OpenText Silk Central. I would give it a rating of 7 out of 10; it could be 7.5. It just lacks certain features that would make it a higher grade if it had more modern features.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Healthcare Company
25%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with OpenText Silk Central?
It can be a bit slow sometimes, and it has not got some of the modern features many of the other competitors have. I am talking about features such as traceability matrix; it is designed more for W...
What is your primary use case for OpenText Silk Central?
I could leave my opinion on some ALM that I have been working with lately. Recently, I have been working with Silk, Azure DevOps, but in the past, I have worked with ALM, QC, and all that kind of s...
What advice do you have for others considering OpenText Silk Central?
I do this for my own benefit, and it has nothing to do with any company views. I work as a permanent employee for a government department. OpenText Silk Central is coming to the end of its support,...
 

Also Known As

IBM Rational Quality Manager, Rational Quality Manager
Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, Barr
AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Engineering Test Management vs. OpenText Silk Central and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.