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

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs OpenText Silk Central comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Adaptavist Test Management ...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
8th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Silk Central
Ranking in Test Management Tools
21st
Average Rating
7.8
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is 3.0%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Central is 1.5%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RS
Has dashboard and reporting features that help us identify and address red flags
I would like to see some improvements in Adaptive Test Management for Jira. First, having a recommendation engine or feature that guides handling risks more intuitively rather than relying on manual processes would be helpful. Second, enhancing the connectivity with third-party tools like Teams or Slack would be valuable. One challenge with integrating Adaptavist Test Management for Jira into workflows is ensuring it accurately tags and incorporates all relevant stories and epics. Sometimes, it’s unclear if the tool considers all dependencies and backlog items, which can affect how risks are assessed. However, it sometimes seems to miss this high-level perspective, which can be a limitation based on how the product is designed. This has been a concern for those who use it regularly, although I don’t manage these aspects personally.
it_user685080 - PeerSpot reviewer
A powerful platform and strong technical support help us to make the right decisions
We are primarily interested in improving the flexibility to customize parts of the tool. At this point, we feel that the customization is bad. For example, we would like to be able to automatize internal projects. We would like like to see the visibility improved, and want to perform certain tests faster. We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end. This is very important to us. In terms of usability and the interface, a few small improvements can lead to a lot of benefits. The interface is good but can be improved. The section on managing requirements for testing has to be improved. This is an old feature that has not been updated at the same rate as the rest of the tool.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The program is very stable and scalable."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Our software development process primarily uses Adaptive Test Management for Jira to monitor real-time risks across all stories and sprint planning. Additionally, we use it to create action plans for high-priority risks."
"We don't use technical support. We have an office in Austria that provides us with solutions. Also, this solution is pretty simple and user-friendly. We don't really need help with it."
"You can group test cases together and track the execution of them."
"The stability of this solution is very good. In our experience it is approximately ninety-nine percent."
 

Cons

"I would like to see some improvements in Adaptive Test Management for Jira. First, having a recommendation engine or feature that guides handling risks more intuitively rather than relying on manual processes would be helpful. Second, enhancing the connectivity with third-party tools like Teams or Slack would be valuable."
"Lacking visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, pie charts, bar charts and histograms."
"They should work on integrating the solution with AI."
"I don't like that you need to use a lot of tabs. One test case takes 15-20 minutes and on Zephyr is take about 5-10 minutes."
"We would also like to manage the integration testing end-to-end."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's pricing is a bit expensive, considering the kind of risk analysis and visibility we want, given that it's built on top of the Jira platform and other Atlassian products. It's priced slightly higher than similar products, maybe five to ten percent more."
"The licensing is rather expensive for those that have many users."
"The cost of this tool, in terms of licensing, is not large."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
37%
Computer Software Company
22%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Energy/Utilities Company
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Adaptavist Test Management for Jira?
The tool's pricing is a bit expensive, considering the kind of risk analysis and visibility we want, given that it's built on top of the Jira platform and other Atlassian products. It's priced slig...
What needs improvement with Adaptavist Test Management for Jira?
I would like to see some improvements in Adaptive Test Management for Jira. First, having a recommendation engine or feature that guides handling risks more intuitively rather than relying on manua...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Micro Focus Silk Central, Borland Silk Central, Silk Central
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, John Lewis, Trip Advisor, Netgear,  Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Sapient
AmBank Group, Krung Thai Computer Services, Deakin University
Find out what your peers are saying about Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. OpenText Silk Central and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.