No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

BrowserStack vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
22nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (13th), Test Automation Tools (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 2.9%, down from 9.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.1%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
BrowserStack2.9%
OpenText Silk Test2.1%
Other95.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RM
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Cross-platform testing has accelerated releases and now needs smarter AI-driven test creation
The best features that BrowserStack offers include the ability to run manual and automated tests on real devices. We can create bugs, integrate it with other platforms like Jira or Azure, and use self-healing scripts with Selenium. We also have the test runs for different versions or with different frameworks, not just Selenium but with Playwright as well. Additionally, there are real-time dashboards and notifications sent when tests fail or when we need screenshots or recordings of test executions, and we can easily integrate this into our pipelines. BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by providing an out-of-the-box solution for whole test executions across different projects for our automobile customers. We have worked on around twenty to thirty projects, and the need for a stable, customizable single test execution platform that supports different platforms has been met. It has helped manage the entire quality assurance of the product efficiently. The measurable improvements due to BrowserStack include a significant efficiency gain, allowing the whole team to collaborate on testing and communicate faster. Also, the easier integration with project management tools has been beneficial. The documentation of findings has improved, which helps us share insights with different project stakeholders.
JG
Manager of Central Excellence at Alpura
Easy to set up with good documentation and easy management of testing cycles
The solution allows for a complete test cycle. The management of testing cycles are easy. We have good control over test cases. We can capture functional testing very easily. We're actually able to accelerate testing now and have end-to-end cycles for testing. We didn't used to have these capabilities. It's easy to automate and accelerate testing. The product offers very good cross-browser testing capabilities. We can do continuous testing and regression testing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"The solution has many benefits, we are not worried about maintaining devices locally in our organization."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"It allows us to test our development against a huge range of product combinations that we could not realistically maintain in house, and it really adds to our core capabilities."
"More than a feature, it was the hardware support that we were able to get through the interfaces, and this helped us address a very rare requirement that had come up within our end customer's stack."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting, as you get a single frame of reporting across all the various tests and the program is very user-friendly."
"It is a fine product; it is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"Using this DLL functionality we were able to automate our product."
"It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"It speeds up testing efforts."
 

Cons

"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."
"I didn't appreciate much about the stability; there have been times that BrowserStack was really, really slow, and that's why I am looking into a different tool."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"The solution is slow."
"I would like application performance improvement to be better as, for me, it looked a bit slow."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"The initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"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."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help."
"I've seen a lot of potential users upset with the SilkTest due to broken installation."
"GUI interface could be simpler for non-developers."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"Need to improve online documentation, community and forums to share issues encountered and solutions."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
"The price is fine."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
919,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise13
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
Improvements for BrowserStack could include better usability when working under a private network or a VPN, since it can be challenging to access restricted URLs. There are times when running an au...
What is your primary use case for BrowserStack?
In the start of my career, I performed functional testing on mobile devices and web applications, and I used BrowserStack for testing web applications and mobile applications for one year. My main ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
919,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.