OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test

Download the complete report

Helped 893,221 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 Functional Testing

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

3rd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

3rd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (5th)

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

19th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 6.8%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.9%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	6.8%
OpenText Silk Test	1.9%
Other	91.3%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple

Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness

Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

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 most valuable feature is the automation of the tests, which saves us a lot of time, especially during the regression tests."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

"It has definitely cut down on a lot of time by using this application, as running our ten environments manually would have taken most of the day rather than doing them simultaneously, which saves me hours."

"For test automation, it helps to speed up the testing and to speed up the software delivery, especially for HPE UFT because you have lots of test automation tools."

"We are a worldwide organization with a complex financial authorization matrix and when changes were made to this matrix, we provided automated test scripts and more than 20,000 tests were executed in 1 week."

"Micro Focus UFT is a good product in my opinion; I can say it's a stable system and it's a legacy, and we have been using it for a long time."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"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."

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

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

"The statistics that are available are very good, the solution offers very good detailed reports, and it's excellent for testing an application's performance levels."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

"It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model."

"Using this DLL functionality we were able to automate our product."

More OpenText Silk Test pros

Cons

"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."

"I would not recommend this solution to others who are considering it."

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording."

"It often crashes."

"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."

"Improvement could be made in the cost of the solution and the support time involved in solving issues."

"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."

"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

"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."

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

"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."

"I've seen a lot of potential users upset with the SilkTest due to broken installation."

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

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

"The browser based testing needs to be improved."

More OpenText Silk Test cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"It's an expensive solution."

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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 Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

it_user69066

QA Expert at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

Nov 11, 2013

QTP vs SilkTest WorkBench

The last few months, I've been working with the Silk Tools (particularly the WorkBench .NET variant IDE) and I must say that I like what I've been using. The libraries provided by Silk are quite good for your typical automation and when you run into custom applications, the .NET IDE (which is…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Construction Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	71

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

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?

We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?

I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...

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.

What needs improvement with Silk Test?

The pricing could be improved.

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.

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Comparisons

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 5% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 4% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 2% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 7% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 6% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 6% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

OpenText Functional Testing

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

OpenText Silk Test

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

OpenText Silk Test is a versatile automated testing tool known for its advanced scripting and recording capabilities in Visual Studio. It offers robust test case management, supporting cross-browser testing and seamless integration with Java and C#, providing a stable environment for automation.

OpenText Silk Test supports GUI object recognition and offers a user-friendly interface that facilitates multi-language support. It enhances test design with its object-oriented approach and integrates performance testing tools for precise data-driven tests. Silk Test excels in browser testing and performance testing across web applications, making it a comprehensive choice for regression testing, SAP automation, and performance analysis.

What are the key features of OpenText Silk Test?

Scripting and Recording Capabilities: Integrates with Visual Studio for efficient script creation.
Cross-Browser Testing: Supports multiple browsers ensuring comprehensive coverage.
GUI Object Recognition: Enhances automation accuracy with reliable object identification.
Multi-Language Support: Facilitates diverse testing environments.
Robust Reporting: Detailed insights into testing processes and outcomes.
SAP Testing Functionality: Optimizes SAP project performance.

What benefits can users expect from OpenText Silk Test?

Enhanced Test Efficiency: Streamlines automation processes for faster results.
Comprehensive Test Management: Manages test cases systematically for improved organization.
Improved Accuracy in Automation: Reduces errors with precise object recognition.
Scalability: Adapts to different project sizes and complexities.
Performance Testing Integration: Identifies and resolves bottlenecks efficiently.

OpenText Silk Test is widely implemented in industries requiring high precision in data handling and performance analysis. It is commonly used in financial services for month-end regression testing and SAP projects for effective automation. Manual, functional, and performance testing in ERP systems further showcases its diverse application in complex business environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

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

OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test