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

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (2nd)
OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
22nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
12th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.7%, up from 8.3% 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 Functional Testing8.7%
OpenText Silk Test2.2%
Other89.1%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.
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

"When compared with UFT and manual execution, we have definitely saved a lot of effort, somewhere in the range of 60 to 70 percent when compared with our efforts to manually test."
"Whereas, in UFT One, I like that our maintenance costs have been reduced by a lot because UFT One is using an artificial intelligence feature to identify objects visually."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"We have used it for the web and Windows-based applications, and it is very productive in terms of execution."
"My advice to anybody who is considering this product is that it integrates well into your environment, is easy to use, easy to maintain, and makes your development efforts more efficient."
"The UFT tool can be such a huge boon to a testing organization that can commit to its use."
"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."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"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."
"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."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"SilkTest is best for desktop applications and good for web applications also with the Open agent."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
 

Cons

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"When a debug session ends, UFT forces the user back to the main script. 90% of code development and issues occur in function libraries."
"Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful."
"I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear."
"A user is forced back to the main script during debugging. 90% of code development and issues occur in function libraries, so having the tool jump back to the main script from its last line of execution is problematic making debugging overly tedious."
"Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"I've seen a lot of potential users upset with the SilkTest due to broken installation."
"The browser based testing needs to be improved."
"SilkTest has to improve on Firefox and Chrome as their versions change."
"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."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"At that time, we never had good technical support in Bangalore."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The price is reasonable."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"It's an expensive solution."
"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."
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.
 

Comparison Review

it_user69066 - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Expert at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Nov 11, 2013
QTP vs SilkTest WorkBench
The last few months, I've been working with the Silk Tools (particularly the WorkBench .NET variant IDE) and I must say that I like what I've been using. The libraries provided by Silk are quite good for your typical automation and when you run into custom applications, the .NET IDE (which is…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
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 Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.