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

OpenText Silk Test vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
21st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (21st)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
108
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.1%, down from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.6%, down from 6.3% 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.
LokeshYadav - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation
I've also worked with Micro Focus. I'm working with Micro Focus, however, for that part, I'm working on the mainframe - although I've done some web testing using Micro Focus on a website. Otherwise, I found Selenium to be easier, and simpler to use than Micro Focus when it comes to the web. A lot of support online is available. A lot of forums, and communities are there. For Micro Focus, the part where you identify objects on a webpage, that part is pretty simple on Selenium. You can use XPath or CSS or IDE or anything, and it works fine. Yet with Micro Focus, the web part, I found it a little tedious to work with. Selenium is much easier in that sense on the web part.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"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."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
 

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. 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."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"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."
"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."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"Selenium HQ can improve by creating an enterprise version where it can provide the infrastructure for running the tests. Currently, we need to run the test in our infrastructure because it's a free tool. If Google can start an enterprise subscription and they can provide us with the infrastructure, such as Google Cloud infrastructure where we can configure it, and we can run the test there, it would be highly beneficial."
"There is a need for an auto-healing feature that can address script failures due to changes in the front end."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"The most significant issue with Selenium is its difficulty in adapting to changing locators, which can hinder testing."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
 

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."
"It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
"Selenium HQ is a free, open-source solution."
"It's open-source, so there's no need to pay for a license."
"Selenium is an open-source solution, and It's free."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"The product is open-source and free."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

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.
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.
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
As an open-source tool, Selenium does not have direct costs, but coding can be money-intensive because it is challenging.
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
SeleniumHQ
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.