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

OpenText Silk Test vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 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
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
21st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.8%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 6.2%, down from 7.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation 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.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"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 statistics that are available are very good."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"Selenium integration."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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 pricing could be improved."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"The solution’s customer support should be improved."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
 

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 pricing is pretty reasonable."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
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.
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.