No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Silk Test vs ReadyAPI Test 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
19th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (18th)
ReadyAPI Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
21st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.0%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 2.3%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test2.0%
ReadyAPI Test2.3%
Other95.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

JG
Manager of Central Excellence at Alpura
Easy to set up with good documentation and easy management of testing cycles
The solution allows for a complete test cycle. The management of testing cycles are easy. We have good control over test cases. We can capture functional testing very easily. We're actually able to accelerate testing now and have end-to-end cycles for testing. We didn't used to have these capabilities. It's easy to automate and accelerate testing. The product offers very good cross-browser testing capabilities. We can do continuous testing and regression testing.
Luis Sanchez - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Assurance Test Engineer at Dormakaba
Helps in data, regression, performance, security, and functional testing
ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation."
"The OCR recognition is great, way over Sikulix or Robot Framework."
"The Silk4J feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"SilkTest is best for desktop applications and good for web applications also with the Open agent."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"It speeds up testing efforts."
"The ability to analyse and simulate web services are clearly the main value."
"The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on."
"The Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"The solution saves us a ginormous amount of time; we used to write our own solutions, from small scripts to task web services, so this saves us thousands of hours."
"It gives us the ability to quickly test web services."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"For us this has meant increased test coverage, better system security, less test execution time and above all a greater quality product."
 

Cons

"At the moment, when we are trying to use this tool, we are finding quite a few compatibility issues between the tool and the applications on the test. We wouldn't consider it perfectly stable for that reason."
"The initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem."
"The pricing could be improved."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"SilkTest has to improve on Firefox and Chrome as their versions change."
"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 browser based testing needs to be improved."
"Could integrate the graphing module for load testing."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"The tools that are stated by SmartBear speaks for itself, but when it comes to improvements, there could be a release which only aims for the development of beginners in terms of understanding the tools that are laid by SmartBear."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"Sometimes you have to reload the project when you are moving/reorganizing tests in a project."
"Sometimes it would get stuck, so we had to close ReadyAPI and then start it again."
"Better integration capabiliites with a range of Test Management Systems (not that it is not possible using the API) where a range of aspects are considered such as housing of the project, sharing (some capabilities here), versioning of projects, automatic saving of run information and results (again this can be done in test suite setup but would be great to view in a test management system)."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
 

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."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
"It is free of charge."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"SoapUI Pro is open source but it has a subscription-based model which involves some more features. At the moment we are using the free version. The Pro version requires a license, and it is an annual license to use it."
"The cost is not that bad."
"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
15%
Insurance Company
6%
Marketing Services Firm
6%
 

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 Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise20
 

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
SoapUI NG Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI Test and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.