OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT Developer are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked #13 with an average rating of 7.8. OpenText Silk Test holds a 1.1% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText UFT Developer’s 2.9% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText Silk Test users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 76% of OpenText UFT Developer users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,066 Views
706 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 37 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

2,133 Views
1,408 Comparison Views

76% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

OpenText UFT Developer

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT Developer are complementary testing solutions competing in the software testing category. OpenText UFT Developer often has the upper hand due to its comprehensive features and perceived value for money, despite OpenText Silk Test's strengths in pricing and support.

Features: OpenText Silk Test provides cross-browser testing with strong integration capabilities and support for various platforms, enhancing scalability and ease of maintenance. OpenText UFT Developer offers advanced API testing and continuous integration features, powered by AI to improve test accuracy, focusing on component integration and API testing.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could enhance its user interface to be more intuitive and increase its speed for more complex test scenarios. There's room to improve reporting features and documentation clarity. OpenText UFT Developer can work on reducing its setup complexity, expand language support beyond Java and C#, and optimize its resource usage for better performance.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test provides smooth deployment with comprehensive documentation and effective support, ensuring minimal disruption during setup. OpenText UFT Developer offers straightforward deployment, ideal for complex environments, with flexible service options and extensive technical support, making it adaptable in varied IT settings.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test is recognized for cost-effective solutions with competitive pricing, delivering a solid ROI. OpenText UFT Developer involves a higher initial cost due to its extensive feature set, often justified by the high ROI from efficiency gains in testing capabilities. Silk Test appeals in affordability, whereas UFT Developer offers long-term value through its robust features.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: January 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer

January 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 831,997 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 Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

21st

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (9th)

OpenText UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

13th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

10th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.1%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

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

Mohamed Bosri

Process Architect Referent at Forvia

Efficient recording feature shines amid expected desktop and website enhancements

Our use case involves functionality for a system ERP. We work with Deviation, which is stable and receives positive feedback from users OpenText UFT Developer allows junior testers to learn through open source and online resources like YouTube. They can find solutions to issues even if the…

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

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

"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."

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

"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."

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

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

"The statistics that are available are very good."

"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."

"Integrates well with other products."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"The solution is very scalable."

"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

Cons

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

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

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

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

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

"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

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."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice

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

831,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

19%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

22%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

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

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

It's a high-priced solution compared to Selenium. Selenium is free, though there is a paid version now too. Selenium has improved a lot, and it's still okay to use. It's a functional testing tool, ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites. It is also suggested that the design and some functionality could be better.

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 48% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 20% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% of the time

Apache JMeter vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 8% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 59% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 24% of the time

UiPath Test Suite vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

January 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

January 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

Overview

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

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer

January 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

831,997 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation 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.