OpenText Silk Test vs k6 Open Source comparison

k6 and OpenText are both solutions in the Regression Testing Tools category. k6 is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0. k6 holds a 1.2% mindshare in RTT, compared to OpenText’s 2.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of k6 users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

k6 Open Source

Read 2 k6 Open Source reviews

914 Views
155 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,149 Views
494 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

k6 Open Source

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on May 21, 2025

OpenText Silk Test and k6 Open Source are competing products in the field of software testing tools. k6 Open Source is often considered superior for its advanced features and overall value.

Features: OpenText Silk Test is renowned for its comprehensive testing capabilities, ease of integration with various applications, and suitability for enterprises seeking an out-of-the-box solution. k6 Open Source delivers a lightweight performance testing environment, compatibility with continuous integration workflows, and offers agile testing solutions.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test follows a traditional deployment model with extensive resources for onboarding and support, ideal for companies preferring structured assistance. k6 Open Source emphasizes a straightforward deployment model, focusing on speed and simplicity, relying more on community-driven support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test typically involves higher upfront setup costs but includes comprehensive features and support services, aligning well with resource-heavy environments. k6 Open Source is an open-source alternative, creating minimal initial investment hurdles and significant value when budget constraints are essential, though additional support might incur hidden costs.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. k6 Open Source Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. k6 Open Source

December 2025

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

k6 Open Source

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

9th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Load Testing Tools (7th)

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (20th), Test Automation Tools (17th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Regression Testing Tools category, the mindshare of k6 Open Source is 1.2%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.1%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Regression Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Silk Test	2.1%
k6 Open Source	1.2%
Other	96.7%

Regression Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ArtemCheremisin

Performance Test Engineer at BETBY

Lighter on the RAM and has native Grafana support

The tool's big advantage is that it is more performance-test oriented for experienced testers who know what they are doing. In a normal working setup, performance engineers frequently work with DevOps and development teams. For these teams, k6 Open Source's syntax is much simpler and easier to understand and apply in the working process. Recently, I had a case where I was using another tool, and there wasn't enough memory for it because it required more RAM. k6 Open Source, on the other hand, is lighter and doesn't have a UI, which is beneficial. An engineer I was training could use k6 Open Source scripts even without my help. The tool is more efficient and has native support with Grafana, as both are developed by the same company. This integration enhances monitoring and loss ratio tracking. Thanks to its intelligent GUI, k6 Open Source's design is simpler, particularly for complex scenarios. When we need to manage hundreds of thousands or millions of transactions per minute, the solution becomes a game-changer compared to JMeter.

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 standout feature of k6 is its strong focus on API performance testing."

"The tool's big advantage is that it is more performance-test oriented for experienced testers who know what they are doing. In a normal working setup, performance engineers frequently work with DevOps and development teams. For these teams, k6 Open Source's syntax is much simpler and easier to understand and apply in the working process."

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

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."

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

Cons

"One area where k6 could improve is by introducing a GUI similar to JMeter."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."

"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 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

Information not available

"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 Regression 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

15%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Media Company

Retailer

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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

Questions from the Community

What advice do you have for others considering k6 Open Source?

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

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

BlazeMeter vs k6 Open Source

Compared 15% of the time

Tricentis NeoLoad vs k6 Open Source

Compared 14% of the time

Selenium HQ vs k6 Open Source

Compared 9% of the time

Apache JMeter vs k6 Open Source

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Enterprise Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Enterprise) vs k6 Open Source

Compared 8% of the time

More k6 Open Source 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

Load Testing Tools

January 2026

Download k6 Open Source product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

January 2026

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

Load Impact

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

Load Impact offers three main features:

Automated testing - Integrates into your CD pipeline with CI plug-ins or opt for full control with API/SDKs.
API testing - a powerful scripting environment where you can create as simple or complex API scenarios as you need.
Web & web app testing - easily load test your website or web app. Record user scenarios using our Chrome extension or proxy recorder and configure a test with just a few clicks - no programming required.

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

rackspace, salesforce.com, IBM, servicenow, Nasdaq, JWT

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. k6 Open Source

December 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. k6 Open Source

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. k6 Open Source and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. k6 Open Source report.

See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Regression 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.