OpenText Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

The compared OpenText Application Quality Management and OpenText Silk Test solutions aren't in the same category. OpenText Application Quality Management is ranked #3 in ALM , with an average rating of 8.2, and holds a 5.5% mindshare in the category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 in FT , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 1.7% mindshare. Additionally, 89% of OpenText Application Quality Management users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText Silk Test users who would recommend it.

OpenText Application Qualit...

Read 208 OpenText Application Quality Management reviews

7,202 Views
4,393 Comparison Views

89% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,407 Views
1,013 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Application Qualit...

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between OpenText Application Quality Management and OpenText Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, OpenText and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites.

To learn more, read our detailed Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 883,546 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

OpenText Application Qualit...

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

208

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (3rd), Quality Management Software (1st), Test Management Tools (1st)

OpenText Silk Test

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (20th), Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (17th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Application Lifecycle Management solutions, they serve different purposes. OpenText Application Quality Management is designed for Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites and holds a mindshare of 5.5%, down 5.7% compared to last year.
OpenText Silk Test, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 1.7% mindshare, up 0.9% since last year.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management	5.5%
Jira	12.3%
Microsoft Azure DevOps	10.3%
Other	71.9%

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test	1.7%
Tricentis Tosca	12.0%
BrowserStack	6.8%
Other	79.5%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Hosney Osman

Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone

Service provider recognizes effective project tracking and reporting capabilities

Regarding integration with various development tools, I can provide examples, and I am using customizable dashboards in OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, which definitely help identify project bottlenecks. As for the scalability of OpenText ALM _ Quality Center, there are limitations, particularly in agile methodologies, which is currently my main concern.

Read full review

Jose Alfredo Garcia

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.

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

"From reporting to team management, everything is better now."

"I love linking/associating the requirements to a test case. That's where I get to know my requirement coverage, which helps a lot at a practical level. So, we use the traceability and visibility features a lot. This helps us to understand if there are any requirements not linked to any test case, thus not getting tested at all. That missing link is always very visible, which helps us to create our requirement traceability matrix and maintain it in a dynamic way. Even with changing requirements, we can keep on changing or updating the tool."

"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."

"The most valuable user feature that we use right now is the camera."

"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."

"So the first impression that hits me about HP UFT 14.0 (formerly QTP) is that it seems to be a whole lot faster! But that could be subjective, as I'm running it on a high end gaming system."

"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."

"Having used the tool before, I like the use of parameters, being able to do exports and reports of the data for monitoring of executions, and the defect management as well. I feel satisfaction in that area."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pros

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

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."

"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."

Cons

"If they could improve their BPT business components that would be good"

"Only Internet Explorer is supported. That is a big problem. They don't support Chrome and Firefox and so on."

"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."

"Sometimes I do run my queries from the admin login. However, if I want to reassess all my test cases, then I am still doing this in a manual manner. I write SQL queries, then fire them off. Therefore, a library of those SQL queries would help. If we could have a typical SQL query to change the parameters within test cases, then this is one aspect I can still think that could be included in ALM. Though they would need to be analyzed and used in a very knowledgeable way."

"Browser support needs improvement. Currently, it can only run on IE, Internet Explorer. It doesn't work on Firefox, doesn't work on Chrome, doesn't work on a Mac book. Those are the new technologies where most companies move towards. That's been outstanding for quite a while before it even became Micro Focus tools when it was still HP. Even before HP, that's always been an issue."

"The initial setup was not straightforward."

"We would like to have support for agile development."

"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."

More OpenText Application Quality Management cons

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

"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

"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."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution was expensive for us."

"Depending on the volume, the annual maintenance costs vary on a percentage but it's around $300 a year per license for maintenance. It's at 18% of the total cost of the license."

"I don't know the exact numbers, but I know it is pricey. When we talked to the sales reps we work with from our company, they say, "Well, Micro Focus will never lose on price." So, they are willing to do a lot of negotiating if it is required."

"Sure, HP UFT is not free. But consider what you get for that cost: A stable product that is easy to use; the kitchen sink of technology stack support; decades of code (which in many cases actually is free); a version that is a stepping stone to an easier Selenium design; and a support base that is more that just the kindness of strangers."

"Most vendors offer the same pricing, though some vendors offer a cheaper price for their cloud/SaaS solution versus their on-premise. However, cloud/SaaS solutions result in a loss of freedom. E.g., if you want to make a change, most of the time it needs to be validated by the vendor, then you're being charged an addition fee. Sometimes, even if you are rejected, you are charged because it's a risk to the entire environment."

"This is an expensive solution."

"It allows us to keep our costs low. I do not want to pay beyond a certain point for this solution."

"I'd rate the pricing as 3/10 as it's very expensive."

More OpenText Application Quality Management pricing and cost advice

"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."

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

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

883,546 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Performing Arts

Marketing Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Marketing Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	39
Midsize Enterprise	32
Large Enterprise	162

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	10

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

The on-premises setup tends to be on the expensive side. It would be cheaper to use a cloud model with a pay-per-use licensing model.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?

People are using OpenText ALM _ Quality Center for recording user cases, testing and hand documentation, defect tracking, business purposes, and reporting.

See all answers

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

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 19% of the time

Jira vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Software Delivery Management vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 6% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 6% of the time

Rally Software vs OpenText Application Quality Management

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Application Quality Management Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 13% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 7% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 7% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Application Quality Management

February 2026

OpenText Application Quality Management report

Download OpenText Application Quality Management product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

February 2026

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, HPE ALM, Quality Center, Quality Center, Micro Focus ALM, OpenText Quality Manager

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

OpenText Application Quality Management offers centralized data management, traceability, and integration capabilities. It aids in handling requirements, test planning, and defect tracking while supporting both manual and automated testing. Challenges exist in deployment and browser compatibility.

Known for its robust reporting and flexibility, OpenText Application Quality Management is tailored for large organizations requiring a comprehensive solution supporting lifecycle coverage and seamless tool integration. Users can consolidate testing processes, manage requirements, and centralize reporting across manual and automated testing. While some face issues with project tracking, outdated interfaces, and limited browser compatibility beyond Internet Explorer, it remains widely used for regression and performance testing. Integration with tools like JIRA and support for tools such as UFT and ALM PC underscore its utility.

What are the key features of OpenText Application Quality Management?

Centralized Data Management: Consolidates and organizes testing data efficiently.
Traceability: Ensures traceability across all stages of the testing lifecycle.
Integration Capabilities: Connects seamlessly with automation and other essential tools.
Test Planning and Execution: Supports both manual and automated tests in a streamlined manner.
Advanced Reporting: Provides robust options to generate insightful test reports.
Customization: Offers tailored solutions to fit specific organizational needs.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Efficiency: Increases test management efficiency across projects.
Scalability: Adapts to the varying scope of large-scale projects.
Lifecycle Coverage: Comprehensive management from requirement to defect tracking.
User-Friendly Interface: Designed for ease of use despite needing updates.
Cost-Effectiveness: Balances high initial costs with long-term savings through efficient testing management.

In industries such as finance and healthcare, OpenText Application Quality Management is implemented to ensure rigorous testing standards. It supports test case creation and execution, defect tracking, and requirements management. Integration with JIRA and performance testing tools make it suitable for organizations needing synchronized testing environments.

OpenText

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

Airbus Defense and Space, Vodafone, JTI, Xellia, and Banco de Creìdito e Inversiones (Bci)

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

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

January 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, OpenText and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

883,546 professionals have used our research since 2012.

We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.