OpenText Silk Test vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

OpenText and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0, while SmartBear is ranked #21 with an average rating of 7.3. OpenText holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

773 Views
384 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

ReadyAPI Test

Read 31 ReadyAPI Test reviews

336 Views
135 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

ReadyAPI Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and ReadyAPI Test are competing products in software testing automation. Users find OpenText Silk Test more favorable in terms of pricing and support, while ReadyAPI Test is preferred for its extensive features, indicating it might be more suitable for those focusing on functionality.

Features: OpenText Silk Test offers robust GUI testing capabilities, performs cross-browser and mobile testing, and enhances test accuracy with automation scripts. ReadyAPI Test focuses on API testing, simplifies complex testing scenarios, and supports extensive protocols with seamless integration.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could improve its integration capabilities and simplify its deployment in complex environments. There's a need for better API testing support and faster system integration. ReadyAPI Test may benefit from enhanced GUI testing features and improved affordability, along with increased speed for large-scale testing environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ReadyAPI Test provides straightforward deployment and integrates easily into diverse environments, with strong customer support known for its responsiveness. OpenText Silk Test also offers smooth deployment, although it can be more complex in certain settings. Its customer service is less responsive compared to ReadyAPI Test.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test presents a lower initial setup cost, appealing to budget-conscious buyers with a steady ROI from efficient testing processes. ReadyAPI Test, despite higher initial costs, offers a better long-term ROI due to its comprehensive features and ease of integration, resulting in reduced testing times and a strong value proposition.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI Test

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 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

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (20th)

ReadyAPI Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

21st

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

9th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

API Testing Tools (9th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.9%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 0.5%, down 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

Luis Sanchez

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.

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

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

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

"It's easy to automate and accelerate 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 statistics that are available are very good."

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

"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."

"The utmost importance lies in the performance of the application."

"It's a very simple solution to use."

"The interface is user-friendly."

"The Pro and free version of SoapUI Pro has good technical support."

"API mockups, functional testing, and load testing are valuable features."

"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."

"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."

Cons

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

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

"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 pricing could be improved."

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

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

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

"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."

"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."

"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."

"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."

"The UI could be a bit more flexible."

"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."

"I would like more documentation, training, tutorials, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate that I have to save everything. It takes up a lot of space on my laptop, but I have to install the WSDL again If I don't save it."

"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."

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."

"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."

"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."

"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."

"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."

"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."

"It is free of charge."

"The cost is not that bad."

"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."

More ReadyAPI Test 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

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

23%

Insurance Company

12%

Computer Software Company

11%

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 SoapUI Pro?

The product allows us to uncover any potential issues early on.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SoapUI Pro?

ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

See all answers

What needs improvement with SoapUI Pro?

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 50% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 15% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 15% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Postman vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 71% of the time

Broadcom Service Virtualization vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 10% of the time

ReadyAPI vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 6% of the time

Katalon Studio vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 5% of the time

IBM Rational Test Workbench vs ReadyAPI Test

Compared 4% of the time

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

June 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

ReadyAPI Test

June 2025

Download ReadyAPI Test product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

SoapUI NG 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

For REST, SOAP and other popular API and IoT protocols, SoapUI NG Pro provides the industry's most comprehensive and easy-to-learn functional testing capabilities. Based on open core technology proven by millions of community members, SoapUI NG Pro helps you ensure that your APIs perform as intended, meet your business requirements, timeframes, and team skill sets right from day one.

SmartBear

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI Test

May 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI Test

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI Test report.

See our list of best Functional Testing 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.