OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT One comparison

OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT One are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText Silk Test is ranked #19 with an average rating of 8.0, while OpenText UFT One is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1. OpenText Silk Test holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to OpenText UFT One’s 10.1% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText Silk Test users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of OpenText UFT One users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

872 Views
544 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Read 95 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,140 Views
4,477 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

OpenText UFT One

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText UFT One and OpenText Silk Test compete in the test automation software category. Based on the features, UFT One may have the upper hand due to its comprehensive capabilities across various technologies, even though both products offer strong ROI and efficiency improvements.

Features: OpenText UFT One supports a wide range of technologies and applications, including HTML5, Flex, and multiple browsers. It enhances testing with UFT Flex Runtime Loader and Object Spy for superior object identification. It provides comprehensive automation across GUI, API, and business components. OpenText Silk Test offers powerful scripting and object recognition with Java and C# support. It features a strong test case and application state management system, providing efficiency and speed.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT One faces limitations in supporting .NET applications and can be slow on virtual machines. Improvements are needed in browser compatibility and object identification reliability. OpenText Silk Test lacks support for the latest UI technologies and needs better integration with IDEs. Its pricing is high, and support for distributed version control systems is limited.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both products are used primarily in on-premises settings, with some cloud availability. UFT One's customer service varies, with some escalation necessary for complex issues. Silk Test users report mixed experiences with technical support for complex problems. OpenText's support service management is generally prompt, though effectiveness depends on user contracts and urgency.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is often considered expensive but worth the investment due to its wide range of supported technologies and strong ROI from reduced manual testing. It offers various licensing options, including seat and concurrent licenses. Silk Test's cost is high but competitive with market solutions, providing good ROI especially for desktop automation projects. Both products enhance efficiency, leading to faster regression testing and long-term cost benefits.

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,040 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

19th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

19th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

OpenText UFT One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

3rd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

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

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 0.9%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% 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

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

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 feature I like most is the ease of reporting."

"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 statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

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

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

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

"The initial setup is relatively easy."

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

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

"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."

More OpenText UFT One pros

Cons

"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."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

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

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

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

"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."

"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."

"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."

"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."

"The initial setup is complex."

"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."

"Technical support could be improved."

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

"I'd like to see UFT integrated more with some of the open source tools like Selenium, where web is involved."

More OpenText UFT One 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."

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

"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."

"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"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 solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

More OpenText UFT One 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

845,040 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

Computer Software Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

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

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?

UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 15% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 14% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 11% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

March 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

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

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

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

OpenText

Sample Customers

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

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One

March 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. OpenText UFT One 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.