OpenText Silk Test vs UiPath Test Suite comparison

"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."

"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 statistics that are available are very good."

"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."

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

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."

"Our team used to require five to six days to complete the entire release or execution cycle. Now, we're able to complete it within just one or one and a half days."

"The document understanding is good."

"It is a very scalable product."

"The Test Manager, the final stage of the UiPath Test Suite, is its most valuable feature."

"In terms of integration with other lifecycle tools and applications, UiPath Test Suite works very well because of the basis of RPA, and how RPA and automation can handle different applications and different areas of expertise."

"It is feature-rich. It has more features than other RPA tools."

"Test Suite has multiple tools that are fully integrated. It has everything you need to record your test cases, generate your documentation, and integrate synthetic data with your Orchestrator. I like the integrated aspect of it. The biggest advantage of UiPath is that it not only tests but also integrates with all the other services to offer a complete package."

"The console, in a single pane, allows us to understand where we are in the testing environment."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

"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."

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

"The pricing isn't as low as other options."

"They could improve the visualization of the product."

"At FORWARD VI, we see new automations being built around AI and the ability to have developers understand how they can drive some of those AI capabilities with Studio. We are starting to see that. They should also drive that with UiPath Test Suite so that we can not only build that development side faster; we can also develop the tests that go along with it, hopefully automatically."

"Orchestrator is not easy to use or understand."

"The product releases sometimes have issues."

"We are able to automate most tasks by using UiPath. Its interface is fine. However, its price is a bit high."

"We have output arguments in the workflow. We can check results only by using those arguments. It would be better to have some more options, such as screen variables. For example, in a workflow, if we want to check if an activity is present inside, we should be able to get the output to UiPath Test Suite through the activity itself. That would be great for testing."

"More precise logging would be appreciated."

"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 is a little bit more expensive than Selenium, but it provides value for money. There are multiple types of licenses such as the Test Suite license, Studio Pro license, Test Manager license, and Test Robot license. The overall cost estimation is 13,800 dollars."

"Regarding the pricing model, I believe it would be beneficial to combine it with some of the other platform aspects."

"I don't necessarily have a problem with the pricing of the UiPath Test Suite, especially because we're using the testing bot licenses as opposed to the unattended licensing."

"I am not aware of the exact cost. It seems reasonable, but it is an additional cost."

"UiPath Test Suite is a cost-effective solution. Orchestrator is the most expensive UiPath module, costing around $20,000, but you don't need to purchase Orchestrator to use Test Suite. You can buy a nonproductive version that costs about $2,400. It's a better value than other products I've seen."

"One robot license costs 1,500 euros."

"The cost of a UiPath Test Suite license for five users is over $10,000 USD."

"I wasn't involved in the negotiations for the UiPath Test Suite, so I have no information on its pricing."