OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

OpenText Functional Testing and OpenText Silk Test are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Functional Testing is ranked #2 with an average rating of 7.8, while OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText Functional Testing holds a 9.2% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText Silk Test’s 1.0% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText Functional Testing users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 93% of OpenText Silk Test users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing

Read 97 OpenText Functional Testing reviews

8,409 Views
6,139 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

968 Views
726 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing

OpenText Silk Test

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing and OpenText Silk Test are automation tools in the software testing category. Based on feature set and application, OpenText Functional Testing appears to have the upper hand, especially for complex environments, due to its extensive automation features.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports extensive browser and technology compatibility, enabling GUI, API, and mobile testing. It excels in object recognition and offers broad third-party integration. OpenText Silk Test provides robust scripting capabilities, supports various programming languages, and is highly reliable for browser testing with keyword-driven frameworks.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could benefit from enhancements in speed, reduced memory usage, and expanded testing capabilities. Improved browser support and more frequent updates would help. OpenText Silk Test users seek better browser compatibility in line with evolving technologies and more comprehensive support documentation.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both OpenText Functional Testing and OpenText Silk Test provide flexible deployment options, including on-premises and cloud. Customer service reviews are mixed, with some acknowledging effective technical support but also noting delays in responsiveness and resolution.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is more costly, justified by its comprehensive features and broad application support, yielding positive ROI for complex technology environments. OpenText Silk Test is seen as more budget-friendly, appealing to enterprises seeking efficient automation. Both tools offer significant ROI when well-integrated into testing strategies.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,164 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

2nd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th)

OpenText Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 9.2%, down from 9.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.0%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy

QA Automation Architect at Emerson

Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development

I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…

Read full review

SrinivasPakala

Director Consulting Expert at Cgi Deutschland KG

Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available

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.

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

"The stop automation is a great feature."

"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"Micro Focus UFT One gives us integration capabilities with both API and GUI components. I like the user interface. It doesn't require that much skill to use and has automatic settings, which is useful for users who don't know what to select. It also has dark and light themes."

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."

More OpenText Functional Testing pros

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

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

"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

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

Cons

"UFT still requires some coding."

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."

"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."

"The solution needs better marketing, training, promotion, and visibility because it is not visible."

"The solution is expensive."

"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."

"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."

More OpenText Functional Testing cons

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

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

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."

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

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's a yearly subscription. There are no additional costs to the standard subscription."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"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 way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The tool's price is high."

More OpenText Functional Testing 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

865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

it_user69066

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…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

19%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Silk Test?

The pricing could be improved.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 26% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 8% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 7% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText Functional Testing

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Competitors

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 20% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 9% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 8% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing

August 2025

Download OpenText Functional Testing product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

August 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing provides automated testing with compatibility across technologies, browsers, and platforms. It targets APIs, GUIs, and applications like SAP and Oracle for efficient test automation, emphasizing usability and integration with tools such as Jenkins and ALM.

OpenText Functional Testing offers wide-ranging automation capabilities for functional and regression testing, API testing, and automation across web, desktop, and mainframe applications. It supports script recording and object identification, appealing to less technical users. Despite its advantages, it grapples with memory issues, stability concerns, and a challenging scripting environment. Its VBScript reliance limits flexibility, generating demand for enhanced language support and speed improvement. Users appreciate its role in continuous integration and deployment processes, managing test data efficiently, and reducing manual testing efforts.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing?

Multiplatform Compatibility: Works seamlessly across technologies, browsers, and platforms.
Automation Span: Provides automation for APIs, GUIs, SAP, and Oracle applications.
Intuitive Design: Object identification and recording simplify usage for all coding levels.
Integration Capabilities: Interfaces with tools like Jenkins and ALM for streamlined testing.
Built-in Frameworks: Offers frameworks like BPT for accelerated test development.

What benefits and ROI should users consider?

Reduced Manual Testing: Minimizes the effort required for manual testing tasks.
Time Efficiency: Accelerates testing processes with user-friendly features.
Seamless Integration: Integrates with CI/CD tools, enhancing operational productivity.
Comprehensive Coverage: Automates test cases involving multiple scenarios effectively.

In industries like finance and healthcare, OpenText Functional Testing is leveraged for end-to-end automation, ensuring streamlined processes and accuracy in testing. Many companies utilize it for efficient test data management and integrating testing within continuous integration/deployment operations.

OpenText

SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test

July 2025

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. OpenText Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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

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