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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Silk Test 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

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.0%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test2.0%
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Other96.6%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable
We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Due to serious testing needs across platforms and devices, we found CrossBrowserTesting a useful tool as it has the capability for functional testing, UI testing, automated testing just on few clicks."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"It is a fine product; it is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment."
"SilkTest is best for desktop applications and good for web applications also with the Open agent."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting, as you get a single frame of reporting across all the various tests and the program is very user-friendly."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"With the help of SilkTest we've automated a bunch of routine regression tests, thus we saved our testing team weeks of testing time."
"It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model."
 

Cons

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"I had some problems with the local connection, but there is someone that can help us always on customer support chat."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"Implementing a better integration with Git. It was extremely painful to implement the link from Silk Central to Git."
"The initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem."
"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 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."
"I've seen a lot of potential users upset with the SilkTest due to broken installation."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The pricing could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Performing Arts
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.