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

OpenText Silk Central vs Tricentis qTest comparison

OpenText and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. OpenText is ranked #20, while Tricentis is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.3. OpenText holds a 1.7% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 14.6% mindshare. Additionally, 81% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.
OpenText Silk Central
Read 10 OpenText Silk Central reviews
  • 290 Views
  • 290 Comparison Views
81% willing to recommend
Tricentis qTest
Read 18 Tricentis qTest reviews
  • 1,852 Views
  • 1,333 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

OpenText Silk Central and Tricentis qTest compete in the test management tools category. Tricentis qTest seems to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive feature set, despite Silk Central being rated higher for support and pricing.

Features: OpenText Silk Central offers seamless integration with various software development tools, supports extensive test execution and defect management, and provides customizable dashboards. Tricentis qTest provides robust test planning and execution features, agile test management, and advanced analytics for better decision-making.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Central needs enhancements in reporting capabilities, overall usability, and user-interface design. Tricentis qTest requires improved performance, more intuitive navigation, and better integration with certain third-party tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Central has mixed reviews regarding deployment complexity but excellent customer service. Tricentis qTest is praised for its straightforward deployment process and responsive customer support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Central is valued for its competitive pricing and decent ROI. Tricentis qTest, though more expensive, delivers substantial ROI due to its superior feature set.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest Report (Updated: September 2025).
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest
September 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 867,445 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

OpenText Silk Central
Ranking in Test Management Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
2.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (5th)
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 1.7%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 14.6%, up from 12.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis qTest14.6%
OpenText Silk Central1.7%
Other83.7%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ChrisWilliams1 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Read full review
SamuLehikoinen - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features
The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.
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 reporting is probably the most valuable feature."
"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."
"qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location."
"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"What I found most valuable in Tricentis qTest is that it doesn't require installation. You use it through the URL. It also has an excellent reporting feature."
"The self-healing aspects and maintenance of scripts are much faster and quicker, and we are able to find better avenues and better productivity in terms of maintenance, which we can pass on to the customer."
"I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed..."
More Tricentis qTest pros
 

Cons

"It can be a bit slow sometimes, and it has not got some of the modern features many of the other competitors have."
"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."
"We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge."
"I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use. ALM's... Defects Module is really robust. You can actually walk through each defect by just clicking an arrow... But with the qTest Defects module you can't do that. You have to run a query. You're pretty much just querying a database. It's not really a module, or at least a robust module. Everything is very manual."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order."
"We faced challenges when trying to consolidate data in a repository, and similar features were lacking in qTest. It also does not allow for task tracking or calculating time spent on tasks, which affects project timelines."
"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
More Tricentis qTest cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."
"For me, pricing for Tricentis qTest is moderate, so that's a five out of ten. It's more affordable than my company's previous solution, which was Micro Focus ALM."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
More Tricentis qTest pricing and cost advice
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise8
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Tricentis qTest?
I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis qTest?
The solution is expensive. For the features that are available, depending on the volumes of licenses we get, we are able to get better discounts as strategic partners of Tosca. We can pass some ben...
See all answers
What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?
Customers are moving towards Tricentis due to their association with SAP. There is interest in understanding if there are connectors for converting UFT scripts to Tosca, as many customers are looki...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

OpenText Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Central Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Central
Compared 100% of the time
More OpenText Silk Central Competitors
Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest
Compared 34% of the time
OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest Logo
OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest
Compared 25% of the time
TestRail vs Tricentis qTest Logo
TestRail vs Tricentis qTest
Compared 14% of the time
Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest Logo
Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest
Compared 7% of the time
Panaya Test Dynamix vs Tricentis qTest Logo
Panaya Test Dynamix vs Tricentis qTest
Compared 5% of the time
More Tricentis qTest Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Test Management Tools
August 2025
OpenText Silk Central reportDownload OpenText Silk Central product report
Buyer's Guide
Tricentis qTest
August 2025
Tricentis qTest reportDownload Tricentis qTest product report
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central
qTest
 

Overview

Silk Central is an open test management solution which unifies all test assets into one easy-to-use planning, tracking, reporting and execution hub. Silk Central enables you to gain control, collaboration and traceability across all areas of your software testing, whether your methodology is Agile, Traditional or hybrid. Silk Central provides integration of requirements, manual and automated tests, defect tools and your test execution, giving full traceability of the quality of your software testing regardless of role.
OpenText

Tricentis is the global leader in enterprise continuous testing, widely credited for reinventing software testing for DevOps, cloud, and enterprise applications. The Tricentis AI-based, continuous testing platform provides a new and fundamentally different way to perform software testing. An approach that’s totally automated, fully codeless, and intelligently driven by AI. It addresses both agile development and complex enterprise apps, enabling enterprises to accelerate their digital transformation by dramatically increasing software release speed, reducing costs, and improving software quality. 

Tricentis
 

Sample Customers

AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest
September 2025
Free Report: OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Management 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.