We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
ReadyAPI Logo
6,935 views|5,012 comparisons
Silk Test Logo
4,613 views|2,921 comparisons
Featured Review
Find out what your peers are saying about ReadyAPI vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: January 2022.
564,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"It's easy to learn how to use it.""It has the ability to combine it with different CI/CD tools.""When we are doing API testing we have found it to be very efficient to receive results. Additionally, you are able to do tests directly from the API.""The most valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it is user-friendly.""When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing.""A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization.""The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools.""The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."

More ReadyAPI Pros →

"The statistics that are available are very good.""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.""A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing.""The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to.""The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."

More Silk Test Pros →

Cons
"Version control does not work well.""Performance and memory management both need to be improved because other solutions use less memory for the same amount of data.""The initial setup could be less complex.""The reporting is not very robust and needs to be improved.""Lacking flexibility of adding more custom verification for security testing.""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.""It doesn't have connectors to the NoSQL database. This is one of the things where they do not have a very solid strategy today. Other solutions have an in-built mechanism where I can directly and easily connect. An API is more around a user submitting a request on the frontend. It then hits the backend, puts the data, and responds back. If I am hitting MongoDB or NoSQL databases, I do not have ready-made inbuilt solutions in ReadyAPI that can easily help me in automating it faster. In our organization, we deal with NoSQL databases, and therefore, we need Groovy. We just cannot have a connector from ReadyAPI to do that. I have to write Groovy scripts. If you have themes that are predominantly using MongoDB, it leads to more maintenance and support activity because we are introducing more code into our commission. In terms of additional features, it can have cloud support. This is one of the things where we are getting into cloud support. We'll see how it works, but it is one of the doubts that we still have."

More ReadyAPI Cons →

"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 support for automation with iOS applications can be better.""Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side.""Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

More Silk Test Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "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."
  • "There are costs in addition to the licensing fee. For example, if you want to add the load testing you would pay more."
  • "The price of the solution has been fine."
  • "The price was around $6,000 for one license, but I don't remember exactly. It is definitely expensive. Our organization was planning on having multiple licenses for this year."
  • More ReadyAPI Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "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."
  • "We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
  • More Silk Test Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    564,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer: 
    The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites.
    Top Answer: 
    The price was around $6,000 for one license, but I don't remember exactly. It is definitely expensive. Our organization was planning on having multiple licenses for this year.
    Top Answer: 
    To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it would just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and… more »
    Top Answer: 
    A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing.
    Top Answer: 
    When compared with other tools the licensing costs are reasonable and similar to solutions such as Micro-Focus and SAP's Solution Manager, as well as Worksoft which is another market leader in SAP… more »
    Top Answer: 
    The initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem. It means we have to set up a database and application client machines, as well as Silk Meter which manages the licenses. It could be… more »
    Ranking
    11th
    Views
    6,935
    Comparisons
    5,012
    Reviews
    7
    Average Words per Review
    493
    Rating
    7.7
    14th
    Views
    4,613
    Comparisons
    2,921
    Reviews
    5
    Average Words per Review
    699
    Rating
    7.2
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Ready API
    Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
    Learn More
    Overview

    ReadyAPI combines the power of SoapUI Pro, LoadUI Pro, ServiceV, and API Monitoring in AlertSite into a single pane of glass. From functional testing, to performance testing to post-deployment monitoring, SmartBear’s API tools help you to deliver accurate, fast, and secure APIs.

    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.
    Offer
    Learn more about ReadyAPI
    Learn more about Silk Test
    Sample Customers
    Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Insurance Company43%
    Healthcare Company29%
    Logistics Company14%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company30%
    Comms Service Provider15%
    Insurance Company10%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company32%
    Comms Service Provider15%
    Financial Services Firm12%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Midsize Enterprise9%
    Large Enterprise91%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    Find out what your peers are saying about ReadyAPI vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: January 2022.
    564,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    ReadyAPI is ranked 11th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, while Silk Test is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes " A great single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". ReadyAPI is most compared with SoapUI Pro, Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca and Selenium HQ, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. See our ReadyAPI vs. Silk Test report.

    See our list of best Functional 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.