OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer comparison

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT Developer are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText UFT Developer is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8. OpenText Silk Test holds a 1.0% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText UFT Developer’s 2.6% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText Silk Test users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 77% of OpenText UFT Developer users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

813 Views
511 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 38 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

1,786 Views
1,239 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

OpenText UFT Developer

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT Developer are complementary testing solutions competing in the software testing category. OpenText UFT Developer often has the upper hand due to its comprehensive features and perceived value for money, despite OpenText Silk Test's strengths in pricing and support.

Features: OpenText Silk Test provides cross-browser testing with strong integration capabilities and support for various platforms, enhancing scalability and ease of maintenance. OpenText UFT Developer offers advanced API testing and continuous integration features, powered by AI to improve test accuracy, focusing on component integration and API testing.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could enhance its user interface to be more intuitive and increase its speed for more complex test scenarios. There's room to improve reporting features and documentation clarity. OpenText UFT Developer can work on reducing its setup complexity, expand language support beyond Java and C#, and optimize its resource usage for better performance.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test provides smooth deployment with comprehensive documentation and effective support, ensuring minimal disruption during setup. OpenText UFT Developer offers straightforward deployment, ideal for complex environments, with flexible service options and extensive technical support, making it adaptable in varied IT settings.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test is recognized for cost-effective solutions with competitive pricing, delivering a solid ROI. OpenText UFT Developer involves a higher initial cost due to its extensive feature set, often justified by the high ROI from efficiency gains in testing capabilities. Silk Test appeals in affordability, whereas UFT Developer offers long-term value through its robust features.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 852,649 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 Silk Test

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

20th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (8th)

OpenText UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

12th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.0%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.6%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

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

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

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

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) 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 ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

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 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."

"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."

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

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

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

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

"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."

"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

Cons

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

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

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

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

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object."

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"The tool could be a little easier."

"The pricing could be improved."

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

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."

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

"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."

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

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

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

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

"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 price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice

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

852,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

20%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

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

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

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?

In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 51% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 13% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 13% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 56% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 19% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

May 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

May 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

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

Overview

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

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer

May 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

852,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT Developer 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.