Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Silk Central vs Zephyr Enterprise comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

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
9
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (4th)
Zephyr Enterprise
Ranking in Test Management Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
9
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 Zephyr Enterprise is 7.7%, down from 12.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user685080 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
PraveenKumar27 - PeerSpot reviewer
Useful for test case management, but we faced some errors while uploading the test cases
We have used the product well. We use it for test case uploading. We created an Excel file and aligned the columns of the Excel file with the columns on the solution. It was a minimum guidance process. We can meet our requirements using the solution. We are able to do tasks without many errors. Overall, I rate the product a six or seven out of ten.

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."
"It has many features, but the main things that we need are the test cycles and integration with automation because we have automation for the web and mobile applications. We use it for test case management to run the test cases and get the results. At this moment, it is fulfilling our requirements. We are able to get the test execution report and the test pass and fail report. This summary is delivered to our management."
"It has 90% of the basic features you need without having to pay a lot of extra money."
"The solution does its job well."
"If anyone is looking for a good, lightweight, flexible and agile test management product, I think they would do very well with Zephyr Enterprise."
"It has a very intuitive user experience."
"It has a very intuitive user experience."
"We use the solution for test case management."
"It has integration with test automation tools."
 

Cons

"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."
"We faced some errors while uploading the test cases."
"Zephyr Enterprise needs to redesign the reporting."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"We have a lot of automation for our products, and we require a utility for its integration with automation. Currently, we have to write this utility ourselves. It would be great if they can provide such a utility."
"It's difficult to export the test cases in Zephyr, especially with screenshots or attachments, making sharing test cases not very easy."
"Creating better default varieties of reporting would make the product much better and more popular."
"We would like support for the agile and behavior-driven development (BDD) approaches."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."
"It costs a couple of thousand dollars for a little more than 125 users, per month."
"DFS is more expensive than Zephyr. DFS is around $32 per person, whereas Zephyr is $10 per person. There is a major difference in the price, which is the main reason why we are trying to shift to Zephyr."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Zephyr Enterprise?
Some areas for improvement, include its export capabilities. Exporting test cases, especially those with screenshots or attachments, can be cumbersome, hindering easy sharing and scalability.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central
SmartBear Zephyr
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University
Hyundai, Fujitsu, Google, David Jones, Burger King, Ingenico, Websense, Dow Jones, Harris, Saab
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Central vs. Zephyr Enterprise and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.