OpenText Silk Central vs Tricentis qTest comparison

OpenText and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. OpenText is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.0, while Tricentis is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.3. OpenText holds a 1.6% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 14.4% 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

287 Views
287 Comparison Views

81% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 18 Tricentis qTest reviews

1,791 Views
1,290 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Central

Tricentis qTest

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.

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 871,688 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

14th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Design Automation (4th)

Tricentis qTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 1.6%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 14.4%, up from 13.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Tricentis qTest	14.4%
OpenText Silk Central	1.6%
Other	84.0%

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

ChrisWilliams1

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.

Read full review

SamuLehikoinen

Partner Manager at Agiilit Oy

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."

"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."

"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."

"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."

"Being able to log into Defects, go right into JIRA, add that defect to the user story, right there at that point, means we connect all of that. That is functionality we haven't had in the past. As a communication hub, it works really well. It's pretty much a closed loop; it's all contained right there. There's no delay. You're getting from the defect to the system to JIRA to the developer."

"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."

"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."

"The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time."

"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."

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."

"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."

"I wouldn't say a lot of good things about Insights, but that's primarily because, with so many test cases, it is incredibly slow for us. We generally don't use it because of that."

"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."

"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."

"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 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."

"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."

"The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented."

More Tricentis qTest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."

"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."

"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."

"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."

"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."

"We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support."

"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."

"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."

"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."

More Tricentis qTest pricing and cost advice

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

871,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Healthcare Company

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	8

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	13

Questions from the Community

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering OpenText Silk Central?

See all answers

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

Compared 100% of the time

More OpenText Silk Central Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 33% of the time

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 25% of the time

TestRail vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 13% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 6% of the time

Panaya Test Dynamix vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 5% of the time

More Tricentis qTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Central

October 2025

Download OpenText Silk Central product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

September 2025

Download 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

871,688 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.