OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and OpenText Silk Test are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8, while OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers holds a 2.9% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Silk Test’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 78% of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText Silk Test users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,897 Views
1,650 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

968 Views
726 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers are key players in software testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is favored for its advanced capabilities despite a higher cost.

Features:OpenText Silk Test offers automation for web, mobile, and enterprise apps, supports scripting in Java and C#, and provides robust test case management. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers integrates deeply with development tools, supports multiple programming languages, and offers extensive reporting capabilities.

Room for Improvement:OpenText Silk Test could enhance its user interface, offer more third-party integrations, and improve test execution speed. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers could streamline its setup process, reduce its resource footprint, and enhance mobile testing features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:OpenText Silk Test is easy to deploy and comes with comprehensive support. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers requires complex setup but is backed by detailed documentation and strong technical support.

Pricing and ROI:OpenText Silk Test is budget-friendly and offers quick ROI with its rapid deployment. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers, though costlier, provides long-term value through enhanced testing efficiency and integration.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 866,744 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 Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

12th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (8th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.1%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers	2.9%
OpenText Silk Test	1.1%
Other	96.0%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

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

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Integrates well with other products."

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."

"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

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

"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 statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

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

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

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

Cons

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites."

"The price of the solution could improve."

"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

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

"The pricing could be improved."

"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."

"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."

"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."

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

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

"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."

"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

866,744 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Computer Software Company

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Performing Arts

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	29

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

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...

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 systems.

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 48% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 12% of the time

Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 39% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 19% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 8% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

August 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

August 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

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

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test

July 2025

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

866,744 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing 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.