OpenText Silk Test vs Ranorex Studio comparison

OpenText and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0, while Ranorex is ranked #19. OpenText holds a 1.5% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.3% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,149 Views
827 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

3,078 Views
1,878 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Ranorex Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and Ranorex Studio compete in the automated testing domain. Silk Test holds an advantage in scalability and customization, while Ranorex Studio stands out for its intuitive scripting and robust reporting features.

Features: OpenText Silk Test excels in cross-platform testing with robust network simulation capabilities, making it ideal for distributed environments. It offers multi-language support, facilitating Java and C# scripting and includes a system for managing test cases efficiently. Ranorex Studio provides a user-friendly interface with C# and VB.NET scripting capabilities and excels in automated desktop, web, and mobile testing with efficient debugging tools.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could benefit from streamlined deployment and a simplified user interface to enhance user experience. Its integration with other tools might need improvements for better adaptability. Meanwhile, Ranorex Studio could improve scalability for more extensive projects and enhance customization options for more complex testing needs. Its support for additional programming languages could also be broadened.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Ranorex Studio offers straightforward installation and intuitive deployment, renowned for swift customer support and practical solutions. OpenText Silk Test requires more complex initial setup and configuration, though it provides comprehensive guidance suitable for enterprise environments. While Ranorex provides ease in setup, Silk Test offers valuable support in handling intricate deployments.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test involves higher initial costs but delivers significant ROI through its extensive capabilities for complex environments. Ranorex Studio offers a cost-efficient setup and rapid return on investment via swift deployment and blend of robust features. Silk Test caters to enterprises seeking substantial testing infrastructures, whereas Ranorex appeals to those needing budget-friendly solutions with quicker ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. Ranorex Studio Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. Ranorex Studio

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,036 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

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

19th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

7th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

16th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (9th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.5%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.3%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Ranorex Studio	3.3%
OpenText Silk Test	1.5%
Other	95.2%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Jose Alfredo Garcia

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.

Read full review

Aws V

IT Team Leader -Automation Manager at Citco

Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet

There were a lot of issues we faced. One notable improvement would be better API integration within the tool itself, as we still rely on external tools like Postman. Additionally, expanding language support beyond C#, Java, and JavaScript to include Python would be beneficial. An AI feature that automatically detects automation object properties and suggests actions would be a great addition. So, in future releases, AI solutions for automated property identification would be helpful.

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."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

"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."

"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 most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."

"I'm from a UFT background, so Ranorex Studio has a similar feel in terms of how it handles objects. It just felt familiar even though I'd never seen it before. However, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of UFT, but it's a pretty good start, and it's cost-effective."

"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."

"Data security was prime for us. Being able to download and run tests on our local machines was a big plus. The flexibility Ranorex offers in terms of customization is outstanding."

"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."

"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."

"Object identification is good."

"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

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

"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."

"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."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

"When Ranorex is upgraded, the compatibility with other projects, in version control, in-house or on-premise, fails on occasion. However, overall, the stability is good."

"There were a lot of issues we faced. One notable improvement would be better API integration within the tool itself, as we still rely on external tools like Postman."

"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."

"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."

"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."

"When we have updated the solution in the past there have been issues with the libraries. They need to make it clear that the libraries need to be upgraded too."

"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."

"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."

More Ranorex Studio 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."

"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."

"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."

"We paid €3,000 (approximately $3,300 USD) for this solution. When you add the runtime licenses it will be €3,500 (approximately $3,900 USD)."

"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."

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

881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	23

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 18% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 20% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 16% of the time

Qt Squish vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 11% of the time

Eggplant Test vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 8% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 7% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

January 2026

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

January 2026

Download Ranorex Studio product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

No data available

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

Ranorex is a leading software development company that offers innovative test automation software. Ranorex makes testing easy, saves time in the testing process and empowers clients to ensure the highest quality of their products. Its flexible tools and quick ROI make it the ideal choice for companies of virtually any size – and this is why thousands of clients in over 60 countries trust in its excellence.

Ranorex

Sample Customers

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

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. Ranorex Studio

January 2026

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. Ranorex Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,036 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. Ranorex Studio 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.