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

OpenText Application Quality Management vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
17
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (22nd), Regression Testing Tools (13th), Test Automation Tools (20th)
 

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 8.2%, up 4.9% compared to last year.
OpenText Silk Test, on the other hand, focuses on Functional Testing Tools, holds 2.1% mindshare, up 1.1% since last year.
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Application Quality Management8.2%
Jira11.5%
Microsoft Azure DevOps9.9%
Other70.4%
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test2.1%
Tricentis Tosca9.4%
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
Other80.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

GS
Partner at IS Nordic AS
Manages multiple releases seamlessly
We have done some work with companies, probably four or five years ago and found the ability to manage multiple releases simultaneously as a main advantage, especially in complex programs with multiple concurrent releases. Running automated tests against back-level versions in certain environments is possible, and newer versions can be tested as well. It creates constant visibility into the test process, showing the status, bugs, and automated test results. It is a solid product in large corporations in Denmark, ensuring everyone knows where the process stands. There is a good understanding of what is critical, allowing prioritization of test cases.
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

"ALM is for sure scalable."
"It is still the best QA tool on the market that integrates with most of other tools we use."
"It's helped in formalizing and adding structure to what was up to that point in time a series of checklists that were not version controlled."
"With HP ALM, I think it's the fact that it's a self-contained application so we can do everything inside the application and we only need to use this one tool."
"For testing processes and improvements, I would suggest you use this product."
"ALM has got really a good feature which captures screens, decodes them and puts them in a code format."
"Entering requirements and mapping of requirements with test cases, writing and execution of test cases and reporting defects, and generating customized reports are valuable features."
"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."
"Not many performance Testing tool provides end to end response times for scripts running on the page, this tool is capable of providing end to end real time browser response times."
"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."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model."
"It is a fine product; it is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment."
"The statistics that are available are very good, the solution offers very good detailed reports, and it's excellent for testing an application's performance levels."
"Using this DLL functionality we were able to automate our product."
"It speeds up testing efforts."
 

Cons

"Costing is an area that needs improvement."
"The product could do with more native integration for agile projects, a greatly reduced cost model and closer integration with products that are non-HP."
"This product wouldn't really be suitable if a company is in an Agile and DevOps transformation program."
"We cannot rearrange the Grid in the Test Lab. It is in alphabetical order right now. But sometimes a user will want to see, for example, the X column next to the B column. If they came out with that it would be useful for us. They are working on that, as we have raised that request with Micro Focus."
"We have had a bit of trouble at times and, in all fairness, sometimes we felt quite left alone."
"There is room for improvement in the scalability and stability of the solution."
"Backup strategy is lacking in QC. Once the QC server crashes, all your automation artifacts are unrecoverable."
"I'm looking at more towards something more from a DevOps perspective. For example, how to pull the DevOps ecosystem into the Micro Focus ALM."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"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."
"At the moment, when we are trying to use this tool, we are finding quite a few compatibility issues between the tool and the applications on the test. We wouldn't consider it perfectly stable for that reason."
"The initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem."
"Implementing a better integration with Git. It was extremely painful to implement the link from Silk Central to Git."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"At that time, we never had good technical support in Bangalore."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Only major companies that can afford it use OpenText ALM."
"The solution is priceed high."
"It all comes down to how many people are going to access the tool. When teams go above 20, I think ALM is a better tool to use from a collaboration and streamlining perspective."
"The licensing fee is a little expensive."
"If you have more than five users, a concurrent licensing model should be considered."
"Seat and concurrent licensing models exist; the latter is recommended if a large number of different users will be utilizing the product."
"I feel that the licenses are expensive. ​"
"The solution has the ability to handle a large number of projects and users in an enterprise environment with the correct license."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.
916,212 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise32
Large Enterprise161
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

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.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center?
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 bottlen...
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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

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

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlassian, Microsoft, OpenText and others in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites. Updated: October 2026.
916,212 professionals have used our research since 2012.