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

CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
22nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (12th), Test Automation Tools (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.2%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test2.2%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other96.5%
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

"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."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature is that it gives us real OS devices that are available to test, and we don't have to ensure that all of the devices are up to date."
"It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"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."
"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."
"The Silk4J feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"The statistics that are available are very good, the solution offers very good detailed reports, and it's excellent for testing an application's performance levels."
"Not many performance Testing tool provides end to end response times for scripts running on the page, this tool is capable of providing end to end real time browser response times."
"Using this DLL functionality we were able to automate our product."
 

Cons

"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"Need to improve online documentation, community and forums to share issues encountered and solutions."
"SilkTest has to improve on Firefox and Chrome as their versions change."
"At that time, we never had good technical support in Bangalore."
"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 initial setup is somewhat complex if you're deploying on-prem."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"GUI interface could be simpler for non-developers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"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."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"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.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
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
 

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: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.