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

OpenText Silk Test vs ReadyAPI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 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 Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (17th)
ReadyAPI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
14th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.1%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI is 1.6%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
ReadyAPI1.6%
OpenText Silk Test1.1%
Other97.3%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Walter Wirch - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamless integration with cloud environments supports backend projects while seeking AWS Lambda enhancements
ReadyAPI enhances my workflows by allowing us to use Docker containers based on the ReadyAPI test runner. It helps extend our functional tests, even though we are not heavily using performance testing. It supports a wide range of protocols such as Kafka and GRPC, depending on the project. It also aids in faster feedback to developers, allowing them to implement developments in a sprint without the need for extensive testing afterwards, thus improving our time to market metrics.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"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 feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"It's easy to learn how to use it."
"The dashboards are very good and consolidate all of the tests that you are performing with the client."
"The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly."
"The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools."
"For anyone who does not have experience with automation, ReadyAPI provides a sense of comfort, especially for testers who find it hard to go directly into coding."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
 

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."
"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 support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The pricing could be improved."
"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."
"Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in considering which technologies to adopt."
"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"Advanced functionalities could be improved."
"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."
"The initial setup could be less complex."
 

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."
"It costs approximately $200 000 Taiwan Dollars for three years."
"It is expensive. Each user needs to be licensed, and there are different licenses within the product. It starts with 750 euros for a single user per year, but for the full product features, you need to pay a lot more. There are three versions. This cost is for functional testing, and then there is a cost for load testing and virtual services. If you want to use these areas with the functional test license, you are limited. You hit some limits in these functions. If you have all three licenses, then you have full functionality for the API."
"The cost of a license is probably around $1,000 to $2,000. Accounting is done by my leadership. I am more into implementations and making sure all things and processes are taken care of and the frameworks are maintained and managed."
"We use fixed licenses, and the last time I checked, I want to say it's around $680 per seat per year."
"The thing with ReadyAPI is that you have to buy different licenses for different purposes."
"ReadyAPI is moderately priced, with added costs for more plugins."
"The solution is dynamically priced so you only pay for what you use."
"For each license, they charge the same amount, which is less than $1,000 for each desktop license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Insurance Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise28
 

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.
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.
What do you like most about ReadyAPI?
The performance testing capabilities are very good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in considering which technologies to adopt.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?
One issue I found with ReadyAPI is related to event listeners compared to JMeter or SoapUI. We created an in-house dashboard to display automation runs across projects, which required manual updati...
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
Ready API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.