OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and OpenText Silk Test are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is ranked #8 with an average rating of 7.8, while OpenText Silk Test is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers holds a 3.7% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Silk Test’s 2.0% mindshare. Additionally, 78% of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText Silk Test users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

6,093 Views
4,996 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

3,255 Views
2,441 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText Functional Testing for Developers are software testing tools. Silk Test holds an advantage due to its comprehensive support and competitive pricing, whereas Functional Testing for Developers stands out with flexible and developer-focused features.

Features: OpenText Silk Test provides cross-platform testing, automated web and mobile testing, and integration with various environments. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers a developer-centric approach, CI/CD support, and robust test scripting integrated with development workflows.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could enhance user interface customization and expand support for more programming languages. Additionally, improving loading times and adding more detailed analytics could be advantageous. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers may benefit from enhanced cross-platform functionalities and more intuitive reporting. Further refining its graphical user interface and expanding language support could be considered.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test allows for seamless integration and offers dependable customer support, ensuring smooth deployment in existing systems. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers emphasizes quick deployment within developer environments and provides extensive documentation and support, enhancing developer interactions.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test offers an affordable initial cost, providing substantial ROI through cost-effective automation. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers may have higher upfront costs, but it delivers ROI by enhancing productivity and reducing testing time with its developer-centric nature.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: September 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test

September 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 913,806 peers since 2012

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 Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

8th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

9th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

19th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

18th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (9th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 3.7%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.0%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers	3.7%
OpenText Silk Test	2.0%
Other	94.3%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Read full review

Jose Alfredo Garcia

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I believe the main feature for using it is the flexibility across different platforms."

"The most important thing about LeanFT is that it gives us the opportunity to introduce developer testing."

"LeanFT's been very good."

"Every single feature on offer is valuable and useful."

"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."

"LeanFT integrates with our developers work-flow, so our developers can now perform automation using familiar tools, programming language, and IDE, which helps get the whole team involved in test automation."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"The most valuable feature is stability."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

"It is a fine product; it is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment."

"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."

"It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model."

"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."

"The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation."

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

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

"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."

More OpenText Silk Test pros

Cons

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."

"In future releases, I'd like to see disruptors such as IOT and test drones."

"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari."

"Ultimately, due to the scripting, integration, and other functionality that is missing, we may switch to another solution in the future."

"The issue with all the integration is that it can become very costly and expensive and we'd like to be able to recommend one single tool that will do it all."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

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

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

"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."

"At that time, we never had good technical support in Bangalore."

"GUI interface could be simpler for non-developers."

"The browser based testing needs to be improved."

"Implementing a better integration with Git. It was extremely painful to implement the link from Silk Central to Git."

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

More OpenText Silk Test cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers 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."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Outsourcing Company

12%

Construction Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Construction Company

13%

Comms Service Provider

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	30

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	10

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

For functional testing, we are using OpenText Functional Testing for Developers as our product for testing. I am using the cross-browser testing capabilities of OpenText Functional Testing for Deve...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 8% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 7% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 6% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 5% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

September 2026

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

September 2026

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

OpenText Silk Test is a versatile automated testing tool known for its advanced scripting and recording capabilities in Visual Studio. It offers robust test case management, supporting cross-browser testing and seamless integration with Java and C#, providing a stable environment for automation.

OpenText Silk Test supports GUI object recognition and offers a user-friendly interface that facilitates multi-language support. It enhances test design with its object-oriented approach and integrates performance testing tools for precise data-driven tests. Silk Test excels in browser testing and performance testing across web applications, making it a comprehensive choice for regression testing, SAP automation, and performance analysis.

What are the key features of OpenText Silk Test?

Scripting and Recording Capabilities: Integrates with Visual Studio for efficient script creation.
Cross-Browser Testing: Supports multiple browsers ensuring comprehensive coverage.
GUI Object Recognition: Enhances automation accuracy with reliable object identification.
Multi-Language Support: Facilitates diverse testing environments.
Robust Reporting: Detailed insights into testing processes and outcomes.
SAP Testing Functionality: Optimizes SAP project performance.

What benefits can users expect from OpenText Silk Test?

Enhanced Test Efficiency: Streamlines automation processes for faster results.
Comprehensive Test Management: Manages test cases systematically for improved organization.
Improved Accuracy in Automation: Reduces errors with precise object recognition.
Scalability: Adapts to different project sizes and complexities.
Performance Testing Integration: Identifies and resolves bottlenecks efficiently.

OpenText Silk Test is widely implemented in industries requiring high precision in data handling and performance analysis. It is commonly used in financial services for month-end regression testing and SAP projects for effective automation. Manual, functional, and performance testing in ERP systems further showcases its diverse application in complex business environments.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test

September 2026

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. OpenText Silk Test report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.