Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT One comparison

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT One are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText UFT One is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1. OpenText Silk Test holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText UFT One’s 10.1% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText Silk Test users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OpenText UFT One users who would recommend it.
OpenText Silk Test
Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews
  • 872 Views
  • 544 Comparison Views
93% willing to recommend
OpenText UFT One
Read 95 OpenText UFT One reviews
  • 7,140 Views
  • 4,477 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText UFT One and OpenText Silk Test compete in the test automation software category. Based on the features, UFT One may have the upper hand due to its comprehensive capabilities across various technologies, even though both products offer strong ROI and efficiency improvements.

Features: OpenText UFT One supports a wide range of technologies and applications, including HTML5, Flex, and multiple browsers. It enhances testing with UFT Flex Runtime Loader and Object Spy for superior object identification. It provides comprehensive automation across GUI, API, and business components. OpenText Silk Test offers powerful scripting and object recognition with Java and C# support. It features a strong test case and application state management system, providing efficiency and speed.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One faces limitations in supporting .NET applications and can be slow on virtual machines. Improvements are needed in browser compatibility and object identification reliability. OpenText Silk Test lacks support for the latest UI technologies and needs better integration with IDEs. Its pricing is high, and support for distributed version control systems is limited.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both products are used primarily in on-premises settings, with some cloud availability. UFT One's customer service varies, with some escalation necessary for complex issues. Silk Test users report mixed experiences with technical support for complex problems. OpenText's support service management is generally prompt, though effectiveness depends on user contracts and urgency.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is often considered expensive but worth the investment due to its wide range of supported technologies and strong ROI from reduced manual testing. It offers various licensing options, including seat and concurrent licenses. Silk Test's cost is high but competitive with market solutions, providing good ROI especially for desktop automation projects. Both products enhance efficiency, leading to faster regression testing and long-term cost benefits.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One Report (Updated: March 2025).
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One
March 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 844,944 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
19th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
95
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.9%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
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
Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
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

"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 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."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"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."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"It's simple to set up."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use."
More OpenText UFT One pros
 

Cons

"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 pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The pricing could be improved."
"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
More OpenText UFT One cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"The price is reasonable."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice
report
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
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user69066 - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 11, 2013
QTP vs SilkTest WorkBench
The last few months, I've been working with the Silk Tools (particularly the WorkBench .NET variant IDE) and I must say that I like what I've been using. The libraries provided by Silk are quite good for your typical automation and when you run into custom applications, the .NET IDE (which is…
Read full review
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
 

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
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
See all answers
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
See all answers
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
See all answers
 

Comparisons

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 14% of the time
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 13% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test
Compared 11% of the time
More OpenText Silk Test Competitors
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 31% of the time
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One Logo
OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 11% of the time
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 9% of the time
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One Logo
UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 9% of the time
Eggplant Test vs OpenText UFT One Logo
Eggplant Test vs OpenText UFT One
Compared 3% of the time
More OpenText UFT One Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Test
March 2025
OpenText Silk Test reportDownload OpenText Silk Test product report
Buyer's Guide
OpenText UFT One
March 2025
OpenText UFT One reportDownload OpenText UFT One product report
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText
 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Buyer's Guide
OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One
March 2025
Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.