No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (2nd)
OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
22nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.7%, up from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.2%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.7%
OpenText Silk Test2.2%
Other89.1%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
JG
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested."
"It helps us consolidate our efforts."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"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."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting, as you get a single frame of reporting across all the various tests and the program is very user-friendly."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model."
"The Silk4J feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"It is a fine product; it is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment."
 

Cons

"It’s in the middle and not always 100% reliable."
"It often crashes."
"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"UFT is rather slow in execution, and that’s something that needs to improve."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful."
"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The pricing could be improved."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"The browser based testing needs to be improved."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"Implementing a better integration with Git. It was extremely painful to implement the link from Silk Central to Git."
"I've seen a lot of potential users upset with the SilkTest due to broken installation."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The price is reasonable."
"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.""
"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."
"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."
"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."
"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
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user69066 - PeerSpot reviewer
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…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

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?
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...
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.