OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

OpenText Functional Testing and OpenText Silk Test are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. OpenText Functional Testing is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.8, while OpenText Silk Test is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText Functional Testing holds a 8.9% mindshare in TAt, compared to OpenText Silk Test’s 1.0% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText Functional Testing users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText Silk Test users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,360 Views
6,604 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

968 Views
639 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

SmartBear TestComplete

Read 76 SmartBear TestComplete reviews

4,385 Views
3,333 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

OpenText Silk Test

SmartBear TestComplete

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText Functional Testing, OpenText Silk Test, and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, UiPath, OpenText and others in Test Automation Tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Test Automation Tools Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 866,755 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:

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.9%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.0%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.9%, down from 6.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing	8.9%
SmartBear TestComplete	5.9%
OpenText Silk Test	1.0%
Other	84.2%

Test Automation 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

Prakhar Goel

Sr Test Lead at Emerson

Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation

The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

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

"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."

"Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."

"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."

"It is a stable solution."

"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."

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

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

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."

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

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

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

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

"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 initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."

"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."

"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."

"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."

"TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good."

"The integration with various tools is important."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."

"SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition)."

More SmartBear TestComplete pros

Cons

"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."

"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."

"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."

"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."

"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."

"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."

"The user interface could be improved"

"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."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."

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

"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."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

"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."

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

"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."

"The integration tools could be better."

"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."

"Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription."

"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."

"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."

"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."

"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."

More SmartBear TestComplete cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"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."

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

"The tool's price is high."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"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."

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."

"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."

"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."

"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."

"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."

"The product is becoming more and more expensive."

"It is approximately $6,000 a year."

"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."

"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."

More SmartBear TestComplete pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

866,755 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

20%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Retailer

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	20
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	71

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	22
Midsize Enterprise	20
Large Enterprise	32

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the ...

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 sys...

See all answers

What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?

TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?

I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.

See all answers

What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?

While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to imp...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 26% 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 5% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 19% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 13% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs SmartBear TestComplete

Compared 20% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs SmartBear TestComplete

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs SmartBear TestComplete

Compared 8% of the time

Eggplant Test vs SmartBear TestComplete

Compared 7% of the time

Qt Squish vs SmartBear TestComplete

Compared 7% of the time

More SmartBear TestComplete Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

August 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

August 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

SmartBear TestComplete

August 2025

Download SmartBear TestComplete product report

Also Known As

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

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

No data available

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

What is SmartBear TestComplete?

TestComplete is a reliable, sturdy automated testing platform created by SmartBear Software. SmartBear Software is a worldwide technological leader known for developing quality enterprise-class development and testing solutions.

TestComplete simplifies the process of creating tests for numerous applications, including, but not limited to; Desktop, Android, IOS, Web browsers, and Windows. Application tests can be manual, scripted, and even recorded by using keyword-driven or data-driven functionality. There are even additional options for error reporting and automated playback. The object repository is extremely accurate and is fully customizable. TestComplete can easily be used by experienced developers and even by manual novice testers to develop quality automated UI tests quickly.

TestComplete offers three different testing scenarios:

Desktop: Users can easily and quickly automate UI tests using today’s most popular desktop applications, such as; Windows, Java, Python,.Net, VBScript, and more.
Web: Users can effortlessly create renewable tests for all of today’s popular web applications, including JavaScript frameworks on 2000+ trusted browser and platform integrations.
Mobile: Users can safely build and automate serviceable UI tests on actual or virtual android or IOS devices, locally or in the cloud. Users can create code or codeless tests. TestComplete seamlessly integrates with many of today’s popular frameworks.

Key Features

Easily create automated UI tests: TestComplete offers scriptless Record and Replay or simple keyword-driven tests to quickly develop any type of UI test users may require. Tests can be recorded once, then replayed when needed across various applications on mobile, web, or desktop environments. TestComplete integrates with many different languages, such as Java, Python, C+, and more.
Keyword driven tests: Users can easily divide testing steps, actions, objects, and data with an integrated keyword-driven test structure. This makes it easy for every user to participate in the test automation process; there is no programming experience needed. Everything is made simple with easy-to-use point-and-click options.
Data driven tests: Easily distinguish data from test commands to keep administrative efforts simple. Users can improve overall coverage by running various automated mobile, desktop, or web UI tests.
Record and Replay: Users can reuse created automated tests across every environment as often as desired. This helps to expand overall test coverage and represents a huge cost and time savings.

Reviews from Real Users

Sandhiya T S., Sr Solutions Engineer at Lexington Soft, relates, “The record and replay aspects of the solution are quite useful for people. With them, you don't have to write any scripts. Basically, you can record your actions and play them back later. The initial setup is also very easy.”

Sai S R., Staff Test Architect at a tech services company, says, "The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them."

SmartBear

Sample Customers

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

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

Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.

Buyer's Guide

Test Automation Tools

September 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, UiPath, OpenText and others in Test Automation Tools. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

866,755 professionals have used our research since 2012.