We performed a comparison between Silk Test and Testim based on real PeerSpot user reviews.Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"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."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"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."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
Testim is an end-to-end agile testing automation solution which utilizes machine learning for test authoring, execution, and maintenance. Users can create tests in minutes, run thousands of tests in parallel across different browsers, integrate with their existing CI/CD and collaboration tools, and more.
Silk Test is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Testim is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 4 reviews. Silk Test is rated 7.6, while Testim is rated 10.0. The top reviewer of Silk Test writes "A stable solution with good scripting feature, but needs better scalability and a bigger pool of third-party contractors". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Testim writes "Great REST API features, good technical support, and makes it easy to onboard new testers". Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Apache JMeter, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional and Tricentis Tosca, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Functionize, Selenium HQ, TestProject and LambdaTest. See our Silk Test vs. Testim report.
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.