Silk Test OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Silk Test is the #11 ranked solution in top Regression Testing Tools, #17 ranked solution in top Test Automation Tools, and #19 ranked solution in top Functional Testing Tools. PeerSpot users give Silk Test an average rating of 7.6 out of 10. Silk Test is most commonly compared to Micro Focus UFT One: Silk Test vs Micro Focus UFT One. Silk Test is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 71% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 23% of all views.
Buyer's Guide

Download the Functional Testing Tools Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: December 2022

What is Silk Test?
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.

Silk Test was previously known as Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test.

Silk Test Customers
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Silk Test Video

Silk Test Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Silk Test pricing:
"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."

Silk Test Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Director of Engineering at a energy/utilities company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 5
A stable solution with good scripting feature, but needs better scalability and a bigger pool of third-party contractors
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We used it for data-driven automated tests that have numeric calculations with high precision requirements. We probably are using the version from two years ago.

How has it helped my organization?

It was implemented to solve a very large and specific test scenario with 24,000 test cases. It did that, and the company was quite happy with this solution, but it did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. So, we moved to Ranorex. We've now canceled the maintenance for Silk.

That one test scenario has been very valuable. We still use the data results from that. We used it to validate Ranorex. It has helped keep the company on the automated test path.

What is most valuable?

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.

What needs improvement?

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.

Buyer's Guide
Functional Testing Tools
December 2022
Find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, SeleniumHQ, SmartBear and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: December 2022.
655,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been with the company for a little over two years. They were using it when I got here. They have used it for several years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It was stable. It didn't crash and ran as expected.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We had one specific large scale job on which we needed to have automated tests. We had 24,000 test cases, which were too much to do in a timely way by hand. We got Silk Test set up, and it ran. We wanted to run other 24,000 general test cases, but we didn't find cloning to be as effective as we would have wanted. It was easier with Ranorex. That might have been because we were able to hire a third-party consultant to come in for three weeks and get that kicked off for us, where we couldn't find that help with Silk. 

How are customer service and support?

On the phone, they were fine, but we needed a full-time consultant for three weeks. We could not find that through Silk or their contractor base. 

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I believe they used something called TestPartner.

How was the initial setup?

It was done before my time.

What about the implementation team?

It was all done in-house. We had a limited number of licenses for people. We took it off for maintenance a couple of times. That's probably the same challenge with any tool.

Everyone engaged with it worked in proper quality assurance, with the exception of one developer whose job was to set up the DLL link between Silk and our products. His role was limited. He got it set up, and he was done. On an ongoing basis, it was all on our SQA testers.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We now use Ranorex, and we had looked at Ranorex, TestComplete, and LEAPWORK. One of the deciding factors for Ranorex was a recommendation from a respected colleague in a different company.

Generally speaking, Silk Test was fine and better than Ranorex in some ways. The biggest thing was that we were able to get some short-term and very specifically-focused help when needed with Ranorex, but we couldn't get that with Silk. Otherwise, the tool has many comparable features.

What other advice do I have?

It is a fine product. It is just like any other tool. It is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment. Our way to get that on top of our workload was to find a short term contractor. If you've got the manpower to commit to being there to get it started, it will be just fine. There is no real big objection to Silk Test. We just needed some other help with the designs.

I would rate Silk Test a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Srinivas Boyapati - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager QA at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Supports SAP functional testing and recognizes SAP objects in GUI mode
Pros and Cons
  • "A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
  • "Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

What is our primary use case?

We are customers of Silk Test and I'm the IT QA manager

What is most valuable?

This is a good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing. It recognizes SAP objects in the GUI mode which is a valuable feature. 

What needs improvement?

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 user-friendly on the installation and configuration side.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using this solution for three years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is stable. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is scalable because it has a lot of other capabilities as well, which I haven't used. It is perfectly good for other web applications. On the Salesforce side, I do have a requirement but I am yet to explore how much Silk Test supports automating Salesforce. There are five people in my team who use this solution. 

How are customer service and support?

The technical support is very good. There is an online support portal available from Micro-Focus, the parent company. They are good and we get nice SLAs for any of the queries or incidents or any issues we face.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was somewhat complex. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

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 automation. 

What other advice do I have?

The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation. A novice user can use this application with some basic training of a week or so. It doesn't take much more than that to learn and implement.

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Functional Testing Tools Report and find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, SeleniumHQ, SmartBear, and more!
Updated: December 2022
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Functional Testing Tools Report and find out what your peers are saying about Micro Focus, SeleniumHQ, SmartBear, and more!