OpenText Silk Central vs Tricentis qTest comparison

OpenText and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. OpenText is ranked #22, while Tricentis is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 1.5% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 16.0% mindshare. Additionally, 80% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Central

Read 9 OpenText Silk Central reviews

252 Views
116 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 17 Tricentis qTest reviews

1,427 Views
893 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Central

Tricentis qTest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

OpenText Silk Central and Tricentis qTest compete in the test management tools category. Tricentis qTest seems to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive feature set, despite Silk Central being rated higher for support and pricing.

Features: OpenText Silk Central offers seamless integration with various software development tools, supports extensive test execution and defect management, and provides customizable dashboards. Tricentis qTest provides robust test planning and execution features, agile test management, and advanced analytics for better decision-making.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Central needs enhancements in reporting capabilities, overall usability, and user-interface design. Tricentis qTest requires improved performance, more intuitive navigation, and better integration with certain third-party tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Central has mixed reviews regarding deployment complexity but excellent customer service. Tricentis qTest is praised for its straightforward deployment process and responsive customer support.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Central is valued for its competitive pricing and decent ROI. Tricentis qTest, though more expensive, delivers substantial ROI due to its superior feature set.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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

22nd

Average Rating

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Design Automation (4th)

Tricentis qTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 1.5%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 16.0%, up from 10.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

it_user685080

Test Governance at Poste Italiane

We have many possibilities to customize the utilization and we can also work easily at database level for custom reporting and to manage additional information and integration.

We manage more than 400 users and 120,000 test cases / year in our Test and Defect Management solution based on Silk Central, in an enterprise multi-company environment (postal, banking, insurance, telco, mobile, government, business), so for us the most valuable feature is flexibility. With Silk Central we have many possibilities for customizing the utilization and we can also work easily at database level for custom reporting and to manage additional information and integration. In addition we have great support from Micro Focus and real collaboration to drive future direction and new features. The other valuable feature is the easy to use and immediate onboarding of manual testers and general users and test managers.

Read full review

Sudipto Dey

Technical Lead at Linde

It doesn't require installation because you can use it through the URL; it's user-friendly and has an excellent reporting feature

The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better. There's a feature I want to document on the Tricentis Idea Portal for Tricentis qTest, which I hope to see in the next version of the tool. It's a feature available in Micro Focus where you execute a test, and then on a spec level, you mark it as pass or fail. Then at the overall level, Micro Focus will automatically mark the test as a pass if all steps passed or failed, even if one step failed. However, here in Tricentis qTest, you still need to mark the overall level of the test cases. It's not automated, unlike what you have in Micro Focus. If Tricentis adds that feature in Tricentis qTest, it will make life easier for testers.

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

"The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time."

"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."

"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."

"qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location."

"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."

"The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself."

"The most valuable feature is reusing test cases. We can put in a set of test cases for an application and, every time we deploy it, we are able to rerun those tests very easily. It saves us time and improves quality as well."

"I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed..."

More Tricentis qTest pros

Cons

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

"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."

"We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge."

"We faced challenges when trying to consolidate data in a repository, and similar features were lacking in qTest. It also does not allow for task tracking or calculating time spent on tasks, which affects project timelines."

"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."

"The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented."

"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."

"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order."

"I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use. ALM's... Defects Module is really robust. You can actually walk through each defect by just clicking an arrow... But with the qTest Defects module you can't do that. You have to run a query. You're pretty much just querying a database. It's not really a module, or at least a robust module. Everything is very manual."

More Tricentis qTest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."

"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."

"Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray."

"For me, pricing for Tricentis qTest is moderate, so that's a five out of ten. It's more affordable than my company's previous solution, which was Micro Focus ALM."

"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."

"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."

"We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support."

"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."

More Tricentis qTest pricing and cost advice

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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

12%

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Tricentis qTest?

I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis qTest?

Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?

Tricentis qTest needs improvement in its repositories' functionality. Unlike Azure, it does not have repositories to upload scripts. Additionally, it lacks features like task addition and tracking ...

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs OpenText Silk Central

Compared 100% of the time

More OpenText Silk Central Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 33% of the time

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 27% of the time

TestRail vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 13% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 7% of the time

Panaya Test Dynamix vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 5% of the time

More Tricentis qTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Test Management Tools

March 2025

Download OpenText Silk Central product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

April 2025

Download Tricentis qTest product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central

qTest

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

Tricentis is the global leader in enterprise continuous testing, widely credited for reinventing software testing for DevOps, cloud, and enterprise applications. The Tricentis AI-based, continuous testing platform provides a new and fundamentally different way to perform software testing. An approach that’s totally automated, fully codeless, and intelligently driven by AI. It addresses both agile development and complex enterprise apps, enabling enterprises to accelerate their digital transformation by dramatically increasing software release speed, reducing costs, and improving software quality.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University

McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest

April 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest 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.