OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab comparison

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT Digital Lab are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked #18 with an average rating of 8.3. OpenText Silk Test holds a 1.0% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText UFT Digital Lab’s 0.9% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText Silk Test users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of OpenText UFT Digital Lab users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

872 Views
544 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Read 17 OpenText UFT Digital Lab reviews

598 Views
339 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT Digital Lab are software testing and quality assurance products. OpenText UFT Digital Lab holds an advantage with its extensive feature offerings.

Features: OpenText Silk Test supports cross-browser testing and mobile testing, offering robust debugging and seamless integration with various development environments. OpenText UFT Digital Lab provides widespread device cloud testing with vast automation capabilities and a broad range of integration partners.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could improve its agility in rapidly addressing customer inquiries and enhancing its IDE for performance enhancements. It would benefit from expanding its mobile testing features. OpenText UFT Digital Lab might advance by optimizing costs, further simplifying its user interface, and expanding its on-premise deployment options for broader adaptability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test offers on-premise deployment with customizable setups, though its customer service could be more agile. OpenText UFT Digital Lab excels with cloud-based deployment, ensuring swift adaptability and providing responsive customer support for quicker issue resolution.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test is cost-effective, with a lower setup cost promoting high ROI via efficient operations. OpenText UFT Digital Lab, despite a higher initial setup cost, promises better long-term ROI with comprehensive testing capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

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 Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

19th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (19th)

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (5th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.0%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Digital Lab is 0.9%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

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

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"The product is easy to use."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

Cons

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

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

"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."

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

"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"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."

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"The product could be more affordable."

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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

21%

Non Profit

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

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

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 51% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 14% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 14% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Sauce Labs vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 22% of the time

Perfecto vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 21% of the time

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 17% of the time

Appium vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 17% of the time

AWS Device Farm vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 12% of the time

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

April 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

April 2025

Download OpenText UFT Digital Lab product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

Overview

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

Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

April 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Digital Lab report.

See our list of best Functional 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.