OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT One comparison

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT One are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText UFT One is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.7. OpenText Silk Test holds a 1.0% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText UFT One’s 9.9% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText Silk Test users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of OpenText UFT One users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

813 Views
511 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

6,736 Views
4,304 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText UFT One and OpenText Silk Test compete in the test automation software category. Based on the features, UFT One may have the upper hand due to its comprehensive capabilities across various technologies, even though both products offer strong ROI and efficiency improvements.

Features: OpenText UFT One supports a wide range of technologies and applications, including HTML5, Flex, and multiple browsers. It enhances testing with UFT Flex Runtime Loader and Object Spy for superior object identification. It provides comprehensive automation across GUI, API, and business components. OpenText Silk Test offers powerful scripting and object recognition with Java and C# support. It features a strong test case and application state management system, providing efficiency and speed.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One faces limitations in supporting .NET applications and can be slow on virtual machines. Improvements are needed in browser compatibility and object identification reliability. OpenText Silk Test lacks support for the latest UI technologies and needs better integration with IDEs. Its pricing is high, and support for distributed version control systems is limited.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both products are used primarily in on-premises settings, with some cloud availability. UFT One's customer service varies, with some escalation necessary for complex issues. Silk Test users report mixed experiences with technical support for complex problems. OpenText's support service management is generally prompt, though effectiveness depends on user contracts and urgency.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is often considered expensive but worth the investment due to its wide range of supported technologies and strong ROI from reduced manual testing. It offers various licensing options, including seat and concurrent licenses. Silk Test's cost is high but competitive with market solutions, providing good ROI especially for desktop automation projects. Both products enhance efficiency, leading to faster regression testing and long-term cost benefits.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 851,491 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

20th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

20th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

3rd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (7th)

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 One is 9.9%, up from 9.7% 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

Don Ingerson

Sr. QA Automation Engineer at a manufacturing company with 11-50 employees

With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

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."

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

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

"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."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."

"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"It offers a wide range of testing."

"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

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

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

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

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

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

"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."

"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."

"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."

"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."

"We'd like it to have less scripting."

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

More OpenText UFT One cons

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."

"The price is reasonable."

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."

"It's an expensive solution."

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

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

851,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

it_user69066

QA Expert at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

Nov 11, 2013

QTP vs SilkTest WorkBench

The last few months, I've been working with the Silk Tools (particularly the WorkBench .NET variant IDE) and I must say that I like what I've been using. The libraries provided by Silk are quite good for your typical automation and when you run into custom applications, the .NET IDE (which is…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

17%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

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

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?

We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

OpenText UFT One required knowledge of VBScript, which is a limited version of Visual Basic. We frequently encountered stability issues when the browser dependency caused Windows to consume memory ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 13% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

May 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

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 AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One

May 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

851,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One report.

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