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

OpenText Silk Test vs ReadyAPI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (17th)
ReadyAPI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.7%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI is 1.9%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ReadyAPI1.9%
OpenText Silk Test1.7%
Other96.4%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
PK
Lead QA Engineer at Msys Technologies
Experience effective testing with flexible licensing alongside pivotal insights on essential improvements
For non-functional testing, I focus on performance and security. For performance and security tests, I used REST API, SoapUI, and JMeter. These tools help us conduct thorough testing across these dimensions. I find ReadyAPI helpful especially in overcoming security issues, as we experienced slowness in the application after merging our JAR files. For instance, if a person wants to access a university database and encounters a timeout error, we learned through ReadyAPI that the issue was due to HTML protocol limits with the payload. We fine-tuned this process to display the expected data effectively. I consider ReadyAPI a cost-effective solution because it covers three verticals without needing to purchase separate tools for security, performance, or functional testing. ReadyAPI is a versatile tool for creating multiple testing frameworks and validating various parameters seamlessly. REST API is the tool I use to test all three types of articles, meaning I validate the APIs I send to my peers or clients for functional testing, and I also perform security testing to ensure the URL and data passed through multiple components adhere to policies and user privileges. This is done through functional security testing using the REST API tool, and for performance, I ensure that applications can be accessed simultaneously by multiple users without hindrance or slowness through thorough performance testing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The Silk4J feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"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 scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"It speeds up testing efforts."
"Reporting is more robust than other products because test reports can be exported in multiple ways."
"ReadyAPI enhances my workflows by allowing us to use Docker containers based on the ReadyAPI test runner."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"ReadyAPI is pretty straightforward and offers many helpful features, and many things automatically get integrated into it so it is quite a useful tool."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
 

Cons

"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."
"GUI interface could be simpler for non-developers."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The pricing could be improved."
"SilkTest has to improve on Firefox and Chrome as their versions change."
"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."
"I would say if anything needs to be improved, maybe it's some aspects of the user interface."
"Sometimes, if I changed something in ReadyAPI, it would not quickly pick up the change. It used to give me the same error repeatedly, and when I closed the application completely and restarted it, it would pick up that change."
"The overall scope of this solution is limited and could be improved."
"ReadyAPI is not fully integrated with all system ecosystem tests."
"The reporting is not very robust and needs to be improved."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"I would not recommend this product, as there are better products out there."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
 

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."
"The price of the solution has been fine."
"There are costs in addition to the licensing fee. For example, if you want to add the load testing you would pay more."
"The price was around $6,000 for one license, but I don't remember exactly. It is definitely expensive. Our organization was planning on having multiple licenses for this year."
"We use fixed licenses, and the last time I checked, I want to say it's around $680 per seat per year."
"For each license, they charge the same amount, which is less than $1,000 for each desktop license."
"The cost of a license is probably around $1,000 to $2,000. Accounting is done by my leadership. I am more into implementations and making sure all things and processes are taken care of and the frameworks are maintained and managed."
"If I remember correctly, ReadyAPI costs between $5,000 to $7,000 for five thousand virtual users running it at a given point in time. Other tools, for example, Apache JMeter, can run millions of users at a given time. ReadyAPI is a tool that requires you to pay more money if you want more users to run it for performance testing. For functional testing, each ReadyAPI license costs $1,000, and you do get basic testing, and it's inclusive of one hundred users. In my company, if there's a need for more than one hundred users, my team uses Apache JMeter because it's futile to end up paying $5,000 or $6,000 annually just for performance testing, which can be done in Apache JMeter as well. Given the circumstances, my team does performance testing only towards the end of the fiscal year when the regulatory testing of applications takes place. If I have to run ReadyAPI just for two days or just for ten or fifteen odd days, then it's not worth paying $5,000 for the license with the small number of users provided by ReadyAPI."
"This is a cheap solution when you consider the money that will be saved in testing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
885,789 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
11%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Insurance Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise28
 

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.
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.
What do you like most about ReadyAPI?
The performance testing capabilities are very good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?
Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in considering which technologies to adopt.
What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?
One issue I found with ReadyAPI is related to event listeners compared to JMeter or SoapUI. We created an in-house dashboard to display automation runs across projects, which required manual updati...
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
Ready API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,789 professionals have used our research since 2012.