OpenText Silk Central vs SpecFlow comparison

OpenText and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. OpenText is ranked #13 with an average rating of 7.0, while Tricentis is ranked #18. OpenText holds a 2.4% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 81% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 75% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Central

Read 10 OpenText Silk Central reviews

441 Views
432 Comparison Views

81% willing to recommend

SpecFlow

Read 4 SpecFlow reviews

501 Views
346 Comparison Views

75% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Central

SpecFlow

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

OpenText Silk Central and SpecFlow are two distinct products in the test management services category. SpecFlow has the upper hand due to its user-friendly approach and integration capabilities.

Features: OpenText Silk Central offers comprehensive reporting tools, robust test management functionalities, and extensive built-in features. SpecFlow, on the other hand, provides seamless integration with .NET, support for Behavior-Driven Development (BDD), and a developer-focused approach.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Central requires a steep learning curve, better documentation, and simplification of its feature set. SpecFlow needs better performance, more extensive support for non-.NET languages, and streamlined setup processes.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Central demands a longer setup time but has a responsive support team. SpecFlow’s installation is faster and more straightforward, supported by a strong community in terms of customer service.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Central has higher initial setup costs but offers long-term ROI due to its capabilities. SpecFlow’s lower price point and quick productivity wins make it a valuable option for small to mid-sized teams.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Central vs. SpecFlow Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Central vs. SpecFlow

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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 Silk Central

Ranking in Test Management Tools

13th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

2.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Design Automation (3rd)

SpecFlow

Ranking in Test Management Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 2.4%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SpecFlow is 2.5%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Silk Central	2.4%
SpecFlow	2.5%
Other	95.1%

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

ChrisWilliams1

Senior Test Analyst at Kainga Ora

Reporting efficacy and collaboration improve despite outdated features

I do this for my own benefit, and it has nothing to do with any company views. I work as a permanent employee for a government department. OpenText Silk Central is coming to the end of its support, so we will have to move to something else, but I do not know what the other solution will be. Automation is quite immature at our place. It has only really started, so there is no integration with OpenText Silk Central. I would give it a rating of 7 out of 10; it could be 7.5. It just lacks certain features that would make it a higher grade if it had more modern features.

Read full review

Sudipta Das Biswas

Senior QA Automation Engineer at AMCS Group

Ensures efficient testing and validation of both business and technical requirements

In terms of improvement, SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool. While it offers a balanced flexibility, setting it up might require more effort compared to some licensed products that handle everything. However, SpecFlow is a framework, not an automation tool, so the actual automation is carried out through tools like Selenium. Despite setup complexities, the framework itself serves its purpose effectively. In future releases of SpecFlow, it would be beneficial to have some built-in methods for common actions like opening and closing browsers or implementing loops. Having predefined libraries for these functions would save automation engineers time and make the framework more user-friendly. While I'm not sure if such features already exist, they could be valuable, especially for those working on web applications. It would provide a generic and optimized solution that anyone can easily implement without worrying about performance issues.

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 reporting is probably the most valuable feature."

"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is unit testing...It is also an easy-to-use and user-friendly product that can easily adapt to any framework."

"One of the most valuable features of SpecFlow for us is its risk identification capabilities."

"The initial setup is easy."

"SpecFlow's best feature is the ability to add additional layers to the programming."

Cons

"It can be a bit slow sometimes, and it has not got some of the modern features many of the other competitors have."

"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."

"I'd prefer in TFS if we could be writing test cases, not in the old classical version. We should be writing in Gherkin and then automatically have it convert that Gherkin test case into SpecFlow feature files."

"SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool."

"Regarding improvement, it would be good if SpecFlow could provide chain testing, which it currently doesn't allow."

"SpecFlow would be improved with the addition of functionality reporting, which would be really helpful for automation testing."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."

"SpecFlow is open-source and free of charge."

"SpecFlow is an open-source product."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Computer Software Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Healthcare Company

Media Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	8

No data available

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with OpenText Silk Central?

It can be a bit slow sometimes, and it has not got some of the modern features many of the other competitors have. I am talking about features such as traceability matrix; it is designed more for W...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for OpenText Silk Central?

I could leave my opinion on some ALM that I have been working with lately. Recently, I have been working with Silk, Azure DevOps, but in the past, I have worked with ALM, QC, and all that kind of s...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering OpenText Silk Central?

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OpenText Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Central

Compared 58% of the time

TestRail vs OpenText Silk Central

Compared 42% of the time

More OpenText Silk Central Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs SpecFlow

Compared 37% of the time

TestRail vs SpecFlow

Compared 23% of the time

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs SpecFlow

Compared 22% of the time

TFS vs SpecFlow

Compared 18% of the time

More SpecFlow Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Central

January 2026

Download OpenText Silk Central product report

Buyer's Guide

SpecFlow

January 2026

Download SpecFlow product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central

SpecFlow+

Overview

Silk Central is an open test management solution which unifies all test assets into one easy-to-use planning, tracking, reporting and execution hub. Silk Central enables you to gain control, collaboration and traceability across all areas of your software testing, whether your methodology is Agile, Traditional or hybrid. Silk Central provides integration of requirements, manual and automated tests, defect tools and your test execution, giving full traceability of the quality of your software testing regardless of role.

OpenText

SpecFlow is a testing framework that supports Behaviour Driven Development (BDD). It lets us define application behavior in plain meaningful English text using a simple grammar defined by a language called Gherkin.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University

Microsoft, Caterpillar, Siemens, Charles Schwab, IBM, Deloitte, Accenture, Philips, Dell, Deutsche Bank

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Central vs. SpecFlow

December 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Central vs. SpecFlow

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Central vs. SpecFlow and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Central vs. SpecFlow report.

See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Management 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.