OpenText Silk Central vs Tricentis qTest comparison

OpenText and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. OpenText is ranked #20, while Tricentis is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 1.6% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 15.2% 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

288 Views
62 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 17 Tricentis qTest reviews

1,413 Views
504 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: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Central vs. Tricentis qTest

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,592 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

20th

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 July 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 1.6%, down from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 15.2%, up from 11.9% 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

A powerful platform and strong technical support help us to make the right decisions

We are primarily interested in improving the flexibility to customize parts of the tool. At this point, we feel that the customization is bad. For example, we would like to be able to automatize internal projects. We would like like to see the visibility improved, and want to perform certain tests faster. We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end. This is very important to us. In terms of usability and the interface, a few small improvements can lead to a lot of benefits. The interface is good but can be improved. The section on managing requirements for testing has to be improved. This is an old feature that has not been updated at the same rate as the rest of the tool.

Read full review

SamuLehikoinen

Partner Manager at Agiilit Oy

Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features

The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.

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 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."

"What I found most valuable in Tricentis qTest is that it doesn't require installation. You use it through the URL. It also has an excellent reporting feature."

"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."

"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."

"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 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..."

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

More Tricentis qTest pros

Cons

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

"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 would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me."

"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."

"I wouldn't say a lot of good things about Insights, but that's primarily because, with so many test cases, it is incredibly slow for us. We generally don't use it because of that."

"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."

"Reporting shouldn't be so difficult. I shouldn't have to write so many queries to get the data I'm looking for, for a set of metrics about how many releases we had. I still have to break those spreadsheets out of there to get the data I need."

"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."

"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."

More Tricentis qTest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

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

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

"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."

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

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

"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."

"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."

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

860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Financial Services Firm

12%

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 Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Central

Compared 100% of the time

More OpenText Silk Central Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 32% of the time

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 26% 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

June 2025

Download OpenText Silk Central product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

June 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

June 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: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,592 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.