IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

IBM and OpenText are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. IBM is ranked #29, while OpenText is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0. IBM holds a 0.6% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText’s 0.9% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

IBM DevOps Test UI

Read 8 IBM DevOps Test UI reviews

638 Views
355 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

872 Views
544 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

IBM DevOps Test UI

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

IBM DevOps Test UI and OpenText Silk Test compete in the testing automation tools category. OpenText Silk Test has an advantage in overall features, making it more compelling despite IBM DevOps Test UI's competitive pricing and support.

Features: IBM DevOps Test UI offers continuous integration capabilities with robust support for automated testing across platforms and seamless integration with IBM products. OpenText Silk Test stands out with its extensive cross-platform support, advanced testing capabilities, and cloud-based testing options, preferred for large-scale environments.

Room for Improvement: IBM DevOps Test UI could improve in simplifying its integration process for non-IBM environments and enhancing cross-platform compatibility. OpenText Silk Test might benefit from lowering its initial setup costs, streamlining its learning curve for new users, and expanding language support beyond Java and C#.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test is known for a straightforward deployment process, extensive documentation, and supportive customer service, making it accessible for teams of all sizes. IBM DevOps Test UI offers a tailored deployment experience with robust customer support from IBM's network but can be complex due to its integration ecosystem.

Pricing and ROI: IBM DevOps Test UI is a cost-effective option providing good ROI, especially in IBM environments where it maximizes existing resources. In contrast, OpenText Silk Test has a higher initial cost but offers substantial ROI with its comprehensive feature set and scalability.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Silk Test

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 846,617 peers since 2012

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

IBM DevOps Test UI

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

29th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

14th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

19th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (19th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 0.6%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.9%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Hellen Zhang

Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada

Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support

The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.

Read full review

SrinivasPakala

Director Consulting Expert at Cgi Deutschland KG

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."

"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."

"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."

"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."

"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"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."

"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."

"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 scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."

Cons

"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."

"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."

"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."

"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

"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."

"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."

"The pricing could be improved."

"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."

"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."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

28%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Government

Computer Software Company

22%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Silk Test?

The pricing could be improved.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Comparisons

Selenium HQ vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 39% of the time

HCL OneTest vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 23% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 21% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 17% of the time

More IBM DevOps Test UI Competitors

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 59% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 15% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

April 2025

Download IBM DevOps Test UI product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

March 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

IBM Rational Functional Tester

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

IBM DevOps Test UI, also known as Rational Functional Tester, is a software tool designed for automated functional and regression testing of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and data-driven testing. It automates the testing process to ensure application functionalities work as intended and identifies any issues caused by new code changes. The tool is tailored for GUI testing, allowing for easy recording and playback of test cases that interact with UI elements like buttons and menus. It supports data-driven testing, enabling comprehensive tests across various data sets. Additionally, it offers visual editing features with screenshot representations for easy test creation and ScriptAssure technology to maintain test scripts even if the UI changes.

IBM

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.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Edumate

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies

Buyer's Guide

IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Silk Test

February 2025

Free Report: IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Silk Test

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM DevOps Test UI vs. OpenText Silk Test report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

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.