OpenText Silk Test Reviews

The product is used for manual, functional, and performance testing. I'm using the tool for loading data into ERP systems. 

We can use this in various areas of the company, from finance to production to human resources. 

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.

The pricing could be improved. 

We have 800 end users. 

Customer service is good. They also have a lot of documentation and support has a lot of experience using the different tools.

Positive

I've also used Tricentis.

The initial setup is very easy. It's a continuous integration through different environments, including development, test, and production. We have 20 people doing the deployment and testing. There are five people that perform maintenance duties. 

The pricing depends on the license used. The pricing is similar to others in the market. 

In general, it's an expensive solution but a good tool. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

We are customers of Silk Test and I'm the IT QA manager

This is a good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing. It recognizes SAP objects in the GUI mode which is a valuable feature. 

The initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem. It means we have to set up a database and application client machines, as well as Silk Meter which manages the licenses. It could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side.

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable because it has a lot of other capabilities as well, which I haven't used. It is perfectly good for other web applications. On the Salesforce side, I do have a requirement but I am yet to explore how much Silk Test supports automating Salesforce. There are five people in my team who use this solution. 

The technical support is very good. There is an online support portal available from Micro-Focus, the parent company. They are good and we get nice SLAs for any of the queries or incidents or any issues we face.

The initial setup was somewhat complex. 

When compared with other tools the licensing costs are reasonable and similar to solutions such as Micro-Focus and SAP's Solution Manager, as well as Worksoft which is another market leader in SAP automation. 

The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation. A novice user can use this application with some basic training of a week or so. It doesn't take much more than that to learn and implement.

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

We used it for data-driven automated tests that have numeric calculations with high precision requirements. We probably are using the version from two years ago.

It was implemented to solve a very large and specific test scenario with 24,000 test cases. It did that, and the company was quite happy with this solution, but it did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. So, we moved to Ranorex. We've now canceled the maintenance for Silk.

That one test scenario has been very valuable. We still use the data results from that. We used it to validate Ranorex. It has helped keep the company on the automated test path.

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.

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've been with the company for a little over two years. They were using it when I got here. They have used it for several years.

It was stable. It didn't crash and ran as expected.

We had one specific large scale job on which we needed to have automated tests. We had 24,000 test cases, which were too much to do in a timely way by hand. We got Silk Test set up, and it ran. We wanted to run other 24,000 general test cases, but we didn't find cloning to be as effective as we would have wanted. It was easier with Ranorex. That might have been because we were able to hire a third-party consultant to come in for three weeks and get that kicked off for us, where we couldn't find that help with Silk. 

On the phone, they were fine, but we needed a full-time consultant for three weeks. We could not find that through Silk or their contractor base. 

I believe they used something called TestPartner.

It was done before my time.

It was all done in-house. We had a limited number of licenses for people. We took it off for maintenance a couple of times. That's probably the same challenge with any tool.

Everyone engaged with it worked in proper quality assurance, with the exception of one developer whose job was to set up the DLL link between Silk and our products. His role was limited. He got it set up, and he was done. On an ongoing basis, it was all on our SQA testers.

We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee.

We now use Ranorex, and we had looked at Ranorex, TestComplete, and LEAPWORK. One of the deciding factors for Ranorex was a recommendation from a respected colleague in a different company.

Generally speaking, Silk Test was fine and better than Ranorex in some ways. The biggest thing was that we were able to get some short-term and very specifically-focused help when needed with Ranorex, but we couldn't get that with Silk. Otherwise, the tool has many comparable features.

It is a fine product. It is just like any other tool. It is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment. Our way to get that on top of our workload was to find a short term contractor. If you've got the manpower to commit to being there to get it started, it will be just fine. There is no real big objection to Silk Test. We just needed some other help with the designs.

I would rate Silk Test a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case for this solution is regression testing which is done every month end. We have a management cycle specific for SAP where a few changes will be moving to prediction. There are approximately one to two hundred scenarios where that needs to be executed. Our regression test makes sure that the functionality is not being affected at any point in time.

We also use it for automation testing in non-SAP projects that have problems internally detected by our team. 

The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities. This was the major reason for going with Silk Test. The people are happy using it and the end results are provided in a short span of time.

Our deployment process is not very long, where one automated process takes approximately one to two weeks to complete a six hundred step manual test case.

The most valuable feature is the recording capability, which is something that the business users can start learning and using in a day. The technical people are not really required to use this. It is quite simple and easy.

This user interface is quite easy and something that everybody is able to follow.

It has a feature that saves the previous version so it is easy for deployment to just move the current version to the production environment.

The product has a lot of features, but many of the clients do not know how it can improve their productivity. Information on how these features can be used would be helpful.

The support for automation with iOS applications can be better.

Four years.

I have been using Silk Test since version 15. When I used it, it was a really good solution but there is still a lot that can be improved.

It is quite scalable and this has to do with the licensing. It is not a tedious process.

We use this solution internally with the IT team, of which there are twelve to fifteen members. They perform all of the necessary actions and changes, and the reports will be shared globally with the top management.

We do plan to increase our usage. Just recently we procured an additional twenty-four licenses and have seen the benefits. In the future, I foresee that we may purchase licenses for an additional thirty users.

With respect to technical support, anytime we have reached them and received a ticket, we get a response within twenty-four hours. It's quite good, and in cases where they were not able to clarify they reschedule our call based on a convenient time.

We had been using Panaya four to five years ago, and we want to bring that back since our business users are comfortable with it.

I have used SAP TAO previously but that was in another organization. We used it as a build automation tool for UFT. Silk Test is a simpler tool that I retrained myself to use.

The initial setup was straightforward because the vendor, Micro Focus, really helped us in setting up the environment. It was not too complex.

With respect to the deployment, two or three people can handle it. The developer is the one who is responsible for all of the source code management, and the admin takes responsibility for the deployment. These two roles are more than enough for this implementation.

We used the vendor, Micro Focus, for the implementation. They gave us two or three weeks of training, which was good. Initially, they supported us, and we didn't go for any external support.

Our deployment took around two to three weeks. We implemented a role-based strategy with restricted access so that not everybody will have access to the files.

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.

Before choosing this solution there were a few other products that were evaluated. Some of these were Worksoft Certify and SAP TAO. The latter was evaluated for a second time, but we still chose the Silk Test solution. 

I would definitely recommend implementing this solution but make sure to get the necessary authorization. Ask about the service assistant and check with the other users as well.

You have to make sure that you get all of the deliverables that have been maintained in the statement of work that has been described, otherwise, you might miss something and get into trouble. It's better to look at the agreement, see what the deliverables are and make sure that everything has been completed before they hand it over. Otherwise, it will be a really difficult problem to handle.

The features that are currently available are useful for everyone, but there are a lot of improvements that they need to do. The basic functionality to support artificial intelligence is there, but it can still be improved.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I primarily use the solution for performance testing. It can also handle capacity planning on web applications.  

Silk Test is a tool with which we can simulate the number of users, and with that, ramp up and ramp down strategies that we can design. Based on the load model we can design performance tests for our applications. On top of it we can do configurations.

We test the solution to PPS. For example, we test how many PPS transactions per second will be simulated on Silk Test. We can find out how much time testing will take. You can integrate various performance tests, which typically takes one hour. We can do stress tests, and, within an hour, we can then test it. Sometimes, we help test the tool for as long as 36 hours to see how exactly the application can be implemented, in case of any memory loss.

When we did the applications related to performance, we design the load normally. When we try to understand the various critical performance test scenarios, using Silk Test, we record them. Afterward, we handle the configurations. 

According to the results, we trigger. Once we trigger data, we try to observe the behavior of the application, as the tool now simulates the load. We look at the responsiveness and note that the response times are getting increased. 

We also try to see what kind of behavior changes are happening within the application. We'll look at whether the hardware resources of the application are going up, or if memory is going down. We look for problems or memory loss. 

Once we've finished testing, and observe everything, we'll try to do our engineering and work to uncover loopholes that may impact the application's performance. Everything will be recorded and investigated. We'll explain our findings to stakeholders and explain what needs to be done going forward.

The statistics that are available are very good.

The solution offers very good detailed reports.

It's excellent for testing an application's performance levels.

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.

I've been doing performance testing for, I would estimate, 10 or more years now.

The stability of the solution is good. We haven't had any issues, and even if we're stuck, the solution's team will support us and help us overcome any issues we're having in relation to stability. For us, stability is not a problem.

The technical support is very good. If we're ever stuck, and we do sometimes get stuck on a few things, they're able to reply to us in a timely manner and their advice is quite good. We've been satisfied with the level of support we've been given.

To set up Silk Test, you have to take the licenses of the product and configure them onto your server. From there, you can install Silk Test. You should have access to the applications which you are going to test.

In terms of the application manuals, the application needs to be performance tested from various IP's. Other than that, it's a simple, straightforward installation. 

Deployment takes about a month.

We help our clients implement the solution on their servers.

The solution is a good solution, and, in certain cases, I would recommend it. However, it's not always necessary for certain organizations.

Silk Performer is very good. I don't have any complaints about Silk Performer. Before using any Silk product, however, it's a good idea to do a proof of concept.

I'd advise that, for the web applications, users maybe spend some time Googleing information about it. That way you'll see what it looks like and maybe begin to understand it a bit better. It's more or less straight forward and simple. However, if it's for a Windows application, definitely Silk Test is the best there is. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The solution is generally a framework for test functional automation. We use it for automation of web applications for the most part.

The Silk4J feature is the solution's most valuable aspect. With it, you can write custom Java code. 

You can also use keywords by uploading them and users are easily able to manage the keywords themselves.

The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies.

When tests are recorded on to Silk Central, there is a bit of a lack of clarity in terms of what needs to be fed into Silk Central and how the test cases and reports are all managed.

The solution should make it easier to schedule our test cases during out of office hours.

We want the solution to allow us to do more of API level integrations.

I've been using the solution for a year and a half.

At the moment, when we are trying to use this tool, we are finding quite a few compatibility issues between the tool and the applications on the test. We wouldn't consider it perfectly stable for that reason.

The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to.

The initial setup is straightforward. We didn't find it complex at all. Deployment took about 30 minutes in our case.

We handled the initial setup completely on our own. We didn't need the help of outside consultants or vendors.

We are not using the latest version of the solution. We are most likely using a version that is the version before the latest one.

If I were to rate the solution out of ten, I'd give it about a five. It's the new kid on the block. It still needs to improve a lot.

We predominantly use the solution for network performance testing. We are currently deploying a solution to various countries in Africa, so we're predominantly using it for current applications. 

The feature I like most is the ease of reporting. One gets a single frame of reporting across all the various tests. The program is very user-friendly.

The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve.

In my opinion the program is very stable.

We currently have 23 users who are all quality control testers, and I believe the program is fairly simple to scale.

We've had our ups and downs using the program but the technical support is okay and I am happy with it.

The initial setup was fairly simple but quite stressful. It's supposed to support the strategy but as soon as you know what you're doing, it becomes easier.

Overall it is a good tool to use. We just need to get somebody in our company that can use it to its fullest extent and uses it in a piecemeal fashion. In the next release, I would like to see easy integration into other tools like Tosca and ALD Suite and to become the master. And I know everybody says they can do it, but I would like to be the master of masters. The ultimate one. I will rate this program seven out of ten simply because I would never give a product a ten.

The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature. 

The integration of the object library can be improved. It's a bit clunky. 

It also has some commands that are difficult to use sometimes. We work around its deficiencies and forget that it's a deficiency. 

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

If you use it inside Visual Studio, it is very stable. If it's not in Visual Studio, there are a lot of components to test. There are about ten different ways for it to be used. It's quite stable. 

Adding users into the database is straightforward. There are local limits that have to be managed which means you have to have a centrally deployed database. We have around ten users using this solution. They're all professional test automators. 

Technical support is very responsive. They'll get back to you quickly. They fix the issue in a manageable timeframe. They get back to you quickly and intend to work carefully with you. Silk Test support has always been and continues to be very good. 

The difficulty of the integration will depend on whether you are using it as a single user or as a part of a community of users. Integrating for a single user is very simple. If you use it as a part of a community of users you have to understand the SQL setup. It's a little bit more difficult. 

Single user deployment will take around five minutes. The best way to use it is with a central database so lots of people can use it. You have to structure the database and your projects carefully. It's not straight out of the box. You have to do a lot of thinking about how the products and projects are structured in the database. 

The product is very good and I would recommend it. You should make sure that it works with the technology you're testing. Some technologies have very particular functionality and methods of delivering that functionality. You have to make sure that it's compatible otherwise you will always be trying to work around it. 

The Silk Test community of users is quite small. You need to find people who are experienced with Silk Test or take QFT or UFT users and cross-train them. They're not a huge community of users. You have to be careful about who you put on the products and make sure they are well versed in the product you use. Once you know how to use it, it's great but there is a bit of a learning curve. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. I give it this rating because it does not have a big community of users and because it takes a while to understand it. In order to get the full benefits, you have to be a good scripter or coder. It's not for the fainthearted but once you get it, it's great. 

The OCR recognition is great, way over Sikulix or Robot Framework. I also like the fact that the integration with IE works great.

The KDT implementation seems to be pretty stable and easy to use, out of the box.

No, I can't, since we've not implemented this for anything but that evaluation task / proof of concept.

• Implementing integration with IntelliJ IDEA, since it's a way better IDE compared to Eclipse, in my opinion.
• Implementing a better integration with Git. It was extremely painful to implement the link from Silk Central to Git. I couldn't do it with a self-signed certificate implementation of Git, such as the one we use within our organization.
• Improve integration with Maven and Gradle.
• Since I create KDT files locally, I am expecting they get uploaded / visible within Silk Central. Actually, I had to rebuild all of the KDT scenarios on the Silk Central machine. This turns out to be a huge overhead - syncing is also a huge pain with Git.

One month evaluation task for a client that had specifically requested this tool for web, desktop, mobile automation. The client had used this for many years in his organisation and wanted to add more resources.

None that I can think of. I had some issues related to Chrome, but that's something I had also encountered previously, in the Selenium world.

This was not the case for the short time we'd used this.

Since we only evaluated, we only used was the online documentation. That was useful I believe. Can't say anything about email / call-center, since I haven't used it.

Yes, we've used Maven / Gradle frameworks with Selenium + Java with TestNG/ReportNG, Cucumber, JBehave, Serenity BDD, and we've run these frameworks through Git/GitHub/BitBucket/Stash into Jenkins. We've used this for UI, SOAP API, REST API, and DB testing.

While I can't say that the setup was complex, the integration with Silk Central / Git was particularly painful, especially due to the fact that the fields in Silk Central have weird naming that don't sound identical to the naming used by Git/GitHub repos.

I don't know, we used an evaluation version. It would be a good option for a project that required desktop automation, maybe my first option, over QTP / UFT.

This project specifically required Silk Test, so there was no prior evaluation from our side.

Don't be afraid to try it since it's an extremely powerful tool, but be patient and call the tech help desk for support. Also, post your findings online for others to help or get help.