OpenText Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

The compared OpenText Application Quality Management and OpenText Silk Test solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText Application Quality Management is ranked #3 in ALM , with an average rating of 8.2, and holds a 5.9% mindshare in the category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 in FT , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 1.8% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText Application Quality Management users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText Silk Test users who would recommend it.

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

9,117 Views
5,470 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,760 Views
1,267 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText Application Quality Management and OpenText Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, OpenText and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites.

To learn more, read our detailed Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 889,855 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 Application Qualit...

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

208

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd), Quality Management Software (1st), Test Management Tools (1st)

OpenText Silk Test

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (20th), Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (17th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Application Quality Management is designed for Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites and holds a mindshare of 5.9%, up 5.6% compared to last year.
OpenText Silk Test, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 1.8% mindshare, up 0.9% since last year.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management	5.9%
Jira	11.5%
Microsoft Azure DevOps	10.0%
Other	72.6%

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test	1.8%
Tricentis Tosca	10.8%
OpenText Functional Testing	6.3%
Other	81.1%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Hosney Osman

Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone

Service provider recognizes effective project tracking and reporting capabilities

Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlenecks. As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.

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

"We have developers, project managers, stakeholders, everybody referring to one single point-of-truth for everything that is related to a project, from requirements, test cases, coverage, defect tracking, and reporting."

"We are able to use Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for test management, defect management, test process, test governance activities, and requirement management, and we are able to achieve all of this; the solution is very useful."

"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."

"Quality Center has helped my organization in monitoring the testing process and improving productivity."

"By using QC we broke down silos (of teams), improved the organization of our tests, have a much better view of the testing status, and became much quicker in providing test results with document generation."

"Very robust API to interface with the tool and you can customize how it is used."

"We were able to manage test cases effectively when we were using it. It worked well for us."

"It has sped up our regression testing cycle almost three times what it is if we do it manually."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

"The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation."

"It is a fine product; it is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"Not many performance Testing tool provides end to end response times for scripts running on the page, this tool is capable of providing end to end real time browser response times."

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

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

"With the help of SilkTest we've automated a bunch of routine regression tests, thus we saved our testing team weeks of testing time."

"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."

More OpenText Silk Test pros

Cons

"The Web UI and the Administration Page need to improve."

"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"

"The reporting features could be improved."

"The UI is becoming somewhat dated but that shouldn't be a deal breaker."

"It's doing what it should do, but it's a little bit costly. I would like to see some kind of testing analytics."

"QC comes with a high license and maintenance cost, it is more suitable for large projects in terms of cost."

"There's room for improvement in the requirements traceability with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. That could use an uplift."

"The support is not good and the documentation is not consistent."

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

"The initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem."

"GUI interface could be simpler for non-developers."

"The browser based testing needs to be improved."

"The pricing could be improved."

"At that time, we never had good technical support in Bangalore."

"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."

"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive."

More OpenText Silk Test cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is an expensive tool. I think one needs to pay 10,000 USD towards the perpetual licensing model."

"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."

"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."

"The solution was expensive for us."

"ALM Quality Center is a little bit costly."

"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is very expensive. The price is approximately £2,000 per person, they are too expensive to corner the market."

"We have divided our licenses between Micro Focus ALM and ALM Octane. It works for us."

"Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pricing and cost advice

"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 Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

889,855 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Performing Arts

Marketing Services Firm

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Construction Company

10%

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	41
Midsize Enterprise	32
Large Enterprise	160

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

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.

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

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 17% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 5% of the time

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 4% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 4% of the time

TFS vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 7% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 6% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management

April 2026

OpenText Application Quality Management report

Download OpenText Application Quality Management product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

April 2026

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

OpenText Application Quality Management offers centralized data management, traceability, and integration capabilities. It aids in handling requirements, test planning, and defect tracking while supporting both manual and automated testing. Challenges exist in deployment and browser compatibility.

Known for its robust reporting and flexibility, OpenText Application Quality Management is tailored for large organizations requiring a comprehensive solution supporting lifecycle coverage and seamless tool integration. Users can consolidate testing processes, manage requirements, and centralize reporting across manual and automated testing. While some face issues with project tracking, outdated interfaces, and limited browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, it remains widely used for regression and performance testing. Integration with tools like JIRA and support for tools such as UFT and ALM PC underscore its utility.

What are the key features of OpenText Application Quality Management?

Centralized Data Management: Consolidates and organizes testing data efficiently.
Traceability: Ensures traceability across all stages of the testing lifecycle.
Integration Capabilities: Connects seamlessly with automation and other essential tools.
Test Planning and Execution: Supports both manual and automated tests in a streamlined manner.
Advanced Reporting: Provides robust options to generate insightful test reports.
Customization: Offers tailored solutions to fit specific organizational needs.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Efficiency: Increases test management efficiency across projects.
Scalability: Adapts to the varying scope of large-scale projects.
Lifecycle Coverage: Comprehensive management from requirement to defect tracking.
User-Friendly Interface: Designed for ease of use despite needing updates.
Cost-Effectiveness: Balances high initial costs with long-term savings through efficient testing management.

In industries such as finance and healthcare, OpenText Application Quality Management is implemented to ensure rigorous testing standards. It supports test case creation and execution, defect tracking, and requirements management. Integration with JIRA and performance testing tools make it suitable for organizations needing synchronized testing environments.

OpenText

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

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

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

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

April 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, OpenText and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

889,855 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.