OpenText Functional Testing and OpenText Silk Test are key players in the automated testing software market, each with distinct strengths. OpenText Functional Testing is perceived to have a slight advantage due to its comprehensive feature set and widespread compatibility with legacy systems, making it suitable for complex testing scenarios and large-scale integrations.
Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports an extensive range of browsers and environments, integrates well with ALM, and excels in GUI and API testing with advanced automation frameworks. Users appreciate its compatibility with numerous technologies. OpenText Silk Test offers efficient object recognition, an intuitive scripting capability in Java and C#, and strong test case management, making it easy to automate detailed application interactions.
Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing users suggest enhancements in Chrome and Safari compatibility, running efficiency, and object recognition for modern technologies. OpenText Silk Test could improve its support for recent UI libraries and better integration with contemporary technology stacks and development tools.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing is available both on-premises and in cloud environments, though users note room for improvement in customer service response times. Technical support is generally positive. OpenText Silk Test is primarily deployed on-premises, with users reporting simpler installations and satisfactory customer support with effective problem resolution.
Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is expensive but justified by its rich feature set, helping users achieve ROI through reduced manual testing and enhanced coverage. OpenText Silk Test is also considered costly but competitively priced, yielding significant ROI by speeding up test execution and lowering the need for manual testing in complex environments. Both solutions offer adaptable licensing models to optimize costs.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| OpenText Functional Testing | 6.2% |
| OpenText Silk Test | 1.7% |
| Other | 92.1% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 20 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 13 |
| Large Enterprise | 71 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 3 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 3 |
| Large Enterprise | 10 |
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?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.
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.
