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

OpenText Business Processing Testing vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

OpenText Business Processing Testing and OpenText Silk Test are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Business Processing Testing is ranked #40, while OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText Business Processing Testing holds a 0.1% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Silk Test’s 0.9% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText Business Processing Testing users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText Silk Test users who would recommend it.
OpenText Business Processin...
Read 7 OpenText Business Processing Testing reviews
  • 132 Views
  • 37 Comparison Views
83% willing to recommend
OpenText Silk Test
Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews
  • 773 Views
  • 384 Comparison Views
93% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText Business Processing Testing are products in the test automation sector. OpenText Business Processing Testing often holds the upper hand due to its robust features and enhanced capabilities.

Features: OpenText Silk Test is notable for its automation of web, mobile, and enterprise applications with strong cross-platform support, flexible script sharing, and a powerful object model for windows declarations. OpenText Business Processing Testing emphasizes process-driven testing, advanced modular testing capabilities, and allows nontechnical testers to partake in automation processes.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could improve the speed of application script modifications, enhance browser recognition for newer technologies, and simplify the integration with cloud-based services. OpenText Business Processing Testing may benefit from reducing its learning curve, enhancing integration with non-OpenText systems, and expanding its process integration capability to handle more diverse business environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test provides a user-friendly setup with comprehensive documentation and immediate support. In contrast, OpenText Business Processing Testing, with its complex setup, requires a thorough onboarding process, but it comes with commendable customer service support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test is affordable with a swift ROI appealing to budget-conscious organizations. In contrast, OpenText Business Processing Testing, despite higher initial costs, promises high long-term ROI through improved efficiencies and reduced operational errors.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: May 2025).
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test
May 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 859,129 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 Business Processin...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
40th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Business Processing Testing is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.9%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RR
Helpful solution that enables us to execute our use cases
There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be a lot easier to understand if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool.
Read full review
SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available
While we are performance testing the engineering key, we need to come up with load strategies to commence the test. We'll help to monitor the test, and afterward, we'll help to make all the outcomes, and if they are new, we'll do lots and lots of interpretation and analysis across various servers, to look at response times, and impact. For example, whatever the observations we had during the test, we need to implement it. We'll have to help to catch what exactly is the issues were, and we'll help to see how they can be reduced. Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are. The solution needs better monitoring, especially of CPU.
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 solution is quite stable with SAP. It's nice. I use it extensively."
"This solution is very helpful to me. I use it to execute my use cases without a manual interface."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"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."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"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."
 

Cons

"There's only one thing that I think needs improvement. When I started off using this solution, I used the Google search engine to learn how to use the tool. I would also check with my colleagues who have a lot of knowledge about it. Selenium has fields of information available. If you click on that field there will be an explanation about how to use the tool. It will be very easier to understand it if Micro Focus included this feature. It is easy to find with the search button, but it would be a great help to the users who are new to this tool."
"The solution shouldn't be so tightly integrated with the ALM tool that they have. It should have its own base rather than the repository."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"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."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
"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."
report
See which vendors are best for you
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
See recommendations
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

No data available
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 50% of the time
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 15% of the time
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 15% of the time
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 10% of the time
ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 10% of the time
More OpenText Silk Test Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
OpenText Business Processing Testing
June 2025
OpenText Business Processing Testing reportDownload OpenText Business Processing Testing product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Test
June 2025
OpenText Silk Test reportDownload OpenText Silk Test product report
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Business Process Testing, Business Process Testing, HPE Business Process Testing
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

OpenText Business Processing Testing (BPT) test framework software will help you move from one-off manual testing and ad hoc functional automated testing to an architected approach with a library of reusable test components. BPT accelerates the move to component-based testing with an integrated test framework approach to creating a repository of reusable test modules that allow for changes to be made once, then propagated across your distributed agile teams to all affected tests.

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

Migros Bank AG
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test
May 2025
Free Report: OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our OpenText Business Processing Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional 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.