OpenText Silk Test vs ReadyAPI comparison

OpenText and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0, while SmartBear is ranked #17 with an average rating of 7.5. OpenText holds a 1.0% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 1.3% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 86% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

813 Views
511 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

ReadyAPI

Read 36 ReadyAPI reviews

1,267 Views
649 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

ReadyAPI

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and ReadyAPI compete in the software testing tools category. ReadyAPI has the upper hand due to its advanced API testing features and seamless integration.

Features: OpenText Silk Test offers robust testing for web, mobile, and desktop applications, focusing on scalability and reusability. Its powerful 4Test language allows scripting using Java or C#. It provides strong cross-browser testing capabilities. ReadyAPI excels in API testing with features like integration with CI/CD tools, user-friendly test case creation, and advanced load testing capabilities.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test can improve its deployment process to be more user-friendly and could enhance its testing features for modern web technologies. Its support for cloud environments needs expansion. ReadyAPI could benefit from better performance testing capabilities and refining its scripting flexibility. Some users would prefer a more intuitive interface and enhanced support for complex testing scenarios.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ReadyAPI facilitates deployment with minimal downtime and offers excellent customer support, enabling quick setup and problem resolution. OpenText Silk Test, while effective, has a more complex deployment process and provides good support but requires more learning time for new users.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test is cost-effective for initial investments, appealing to budget-conscious buyers. However, its ROI may be slower due to its broader applicability. ReadyAPI, with higher initial costs, offers strong ROI through its specialized API testing capabilities, making it ideal for clients seeking comprehensive feature depth.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI

April 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

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (8th), Test Automation Tools (20th)

ReadyAPI

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

17th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (7th)

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 ReadyAPI is 1.3%, down from 1.6% 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

SandeepSingh9

Sr. QA Engineer at Arizona Department of Education

Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper

One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration.

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

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

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

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

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

"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."

"One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration."

"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."

"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."

"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."

"It's easy to implement."

"ReadyAPI enhances my workflows by allowing us to use Docker containers based on the ReadyAPI test runner."

"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."

Cons

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

"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."

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

"The pricing could be improved."

"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."

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

"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."

"Version control does not work well."

"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."

"The content on ReadyAPI in SmartBear Academy is outdated."

"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."

"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."

"There are lots of options within the solution, however they are not upfront or user-friendly."

"Based on my experience, ReadyAPI could improve by simplifying the process of scripting."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"The cost of a license is probably around $1,000 to $2,000. Accounting is done by my leadership. I am more into implementations and making sure all things and processes are taken care of and the frameworks are maintained and managed."

"For each license, they charge the same amount, which is less than $1,000 for each desktop license."

"The pricing is very competitive."

"We use fixed licenses, and the last time I checked, I want to say it's around $680 per seat per year."

"ReadyAPI is moderately priced, with added costs for more plugins."

"The thing with ReadyAPI is that you have to buy different licenses for different purposes."

"If I remember correctly, ReadyAPI costs between $5,000 to $7,000 for five thousand virtual users running it at a given point in time. Other tools, for example, Apache JMeter, can run millions of users at a given time. ReadyAPI is a tool that requires you to pay more money if you want more users to run it for performance testing. For functional testing, each ReadyAPI license costs $1,000, and you do get basic testing, and it's inclusive of one hundred users. In my company, if there's a need for more than one hundred users, my team uses Apache JMeter because it's futile to end up paying $5,000 or $6,000 annually just for performance testing, which can be done in Apache JMeter as well. Given the circumstances, my team does performance testing only towards the end of the fiscal year when the regulatory testing of applications takes place. If I have to run ReadyAPI just for two days or just for ten or fifteen odd days, then it's not worth paying $5,000 for the license with the small number of users provided by ReadyAPI."

"We pay $3,000 annually for a floating license. actually. That allows another person from my company to use it as well. It's a cloud-based license."

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

15%

Insurance Company

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 ReadyAPI?

The performance testing capabilities are very good.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?

Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in considering which technologies to adopt.

See all answers

What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?

In native teams and cloud environments, there is room for improvement. I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor. These are more so points from my wishlis...

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

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 12% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Apache JMeter vs ReadyAPI

Compared 38% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs ReadyAPI

Compared 17% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs ReadyAPI

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs ReadyAPI

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs ReadyAPI

Compared 5% of the time

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

May 2025

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

ReadyAPI

May 2025

Download ReadyAPI product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

Ready API

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

ReadyAPI is an all-in-one automated testing platform that allows teams to create, manage, and execute automated functional, security, and performance tests in one centralized interface.

ReadyAPI Features

Some of ReadyAPI’s key features include:

Continuous integration
Comprehensive dashboard
API discovery
Central, standardized reporting function
Plugin architecture
ReadyAPI Projects
Multiple options for scripting to create functional, load, or security tests

ReadyAPI Benefits

Some of the benefits of using ReadyAPI include:

Easy and flexible test creation and execution: ReadyAPI has visual editors and wizards that make testing easy, saving time and simplifying onboarding.
Test APIs continuously: With ReadyAPI you can run consistent tests on local environments, Docker containers, or other distributed staging environments.
Team friendly: ReadyAPI enables software teams with the ability to easily share testing projects and artifacts, share licenses between team members, and report issues directly from the testing IDE.
Powerful, data-driven testing capabilities: With ReadyAPI, you can save time by checking for numerous real world conditions.
Supports multiple specifications, schemas, and protocols: ReadyAPI includes legacy SOAP services, microservices powered by Apache Kafka, and mainstream REST services, as well as IoT use cases leveraging MQTT. It allows you to test and virtualize the most popular API protocols and also to import APIs from specifications and schemas instantly.

Reviews from Real Users

Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by Dell EMC Unity users.

PeerSpot user Vallalarasu P., Test Architect at a tech services company, states, “ReadyAPI is one of the best tools for API testing because they have made a single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and also service actualization. We also have virtual work that can be an add-in within ReadyAPI. For integration for CACD, they have something called TestEngine, which can also be an add-on for ReadyAPI. We use Python request library and things like that but if you're a bigger organization with hundreds of APIs, then ReadyAPI is a one-stop solution for complete API testing. If you consider TestComplete and other products for an equivalent outcome, you might get something nearly comparable, butReadyAPI is the outstanding product.”

An IT Manager at an insurance company says the solution has “Fast automation, less coding, and is pretty lightweight. When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."

Balamurugan A., Manager at a financial services firm, comments, “We like the user interface. The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools.

They have interfaces with our performance tools, so we were able to leverage all of these integrations and plugins. It is very good from an integrative solution standpoint.”

SmartBear

Sample Customers

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

Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI

April 2025

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

852,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI report.

See our list of best Functional 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.