Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Silk Test vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 14, 2025

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
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.1%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 18.4%, up from 18.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis Tosca18.4%
OpenText Silk Test1.1%
Other80.5%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features
The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"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."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"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."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated."
"The scalability is a valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is the Tosca Commander. Functionality is another thing I find most valuable in the solution."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is it is a completely scriptless automation tool, which I liked a lot. They keep on continuously improving their tools, wherever we are facing any challenges they are able to provide a solution for it. It is easy to learn, everyone can easily read and understand what is happening with the scripts. Any business user or function tester can use the tool efficiently. This is a complete solution package."
"Object Identification Wizard."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"As a codeless automation tool, the product offers a user-friendly experience without requiring extensive coding knowledge. Users can easily handle various applications, including web applications, SAP applications, Windows applications, and even Salesforce applications, without manual coding."
 

Cons

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The pricing could be improved."
"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."
"Parallel execution is not yet implemented for Tosca. This means you can't execute the same test case on multiple machines remotely."
"In Tricentis Tosca, we need to capture the element each time. If they could implement an auto-heal feature, it would capture automatically by detecting it from the page."
"The product is not very stable when used with cloud storage. It is very hard to load the screen, making it difficult to use the tool in cloud storage."
"Tosca's reporting features could be better. Tricentis had a reporting tool called Analytics, but it didn't function properly after they reworked it. After that, they tried a new approach with key-tracing, and that didn't work."
"ScratchBook execution needs to be improved as Tosca crashes multiple times."
"Tricentis Tosca could improve on the ease of use. There is a steep learning curve. The reporting section could be better and some of the new features could be simplified. Additionally, the user management of the client and the server are confusing. There should not be two."
"Tricentis Tosca’s technical support could be improved."
"I would like to see something in terms of AI capabilities."
 

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 different types of licenses: enterprise or professional. The cost varies."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"If you are purchasing less than five licenses, then the pricing is high. On a scale from one to ten, with one being low and ten being high pricing, I would rate this solution at eight."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the pricing a ten. The licensing model is based on a yearly basis."
"The licensing cost for Tricentis Tosca is expensive. It has multiple features, but to use all of its features, you have to pay for additional licenses."
"We have around 200 [concurrent] licenses and the cost around $1.4 million a year."
"I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to talk about the pricing, but it has some significant costs. For example, you have to pay a license and maintenance fee. Then the rest of the terms are negotiable. We have to consider what we need and what benefit we get from it."
"Tosca is expensive. I don't see small and medium customers going for it. It's always large enterprises that have a big pocket. It is very expensive as compared to the other tools that we have in the market. They should reduce the price by half, and if they do that, they would do better business. From the competition perspective, other solutions are at a pretty similar level. UiPath is also very expensive. One thing that I always wanted was a short-term consumption license. With Tricentis, the biggest challenge is that you have to go for a minimum of one year license, and they also try to sell you a three-year license. It would be good if people can get a three-month or four-month consumption license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Insurance Company
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Retailer
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 Business23
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise71
 

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.
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?
For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
Orchestrated Service Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: October 2025.
872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.