OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test

Download the complete report

Helped 857,688 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 Functional Testing

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th)

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

20th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.4%, down from 9.6% 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

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development

I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…

Read full review

SrinivasPakala

Director Consulting Expert at Cgi Deutschland KG

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

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"It's simple to set up."

"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."

"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."

"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."

"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

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

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

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

Cons

"The user interface could be improved"

"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."

"Customer service is a big drawback. From my personal experience, after creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody."

"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

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

"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."

"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."

"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 could be improved."

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

More OpenText Functional Testing pricing and cost advice

"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."

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

857,688 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

17%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Computer Software Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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 do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...

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 31% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 15% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 15% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% 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

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

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