No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Silk Test vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (17th)
ReadyAPI Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
20th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.0%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 2.2%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test2.0%
ReadyAPI Test2.2%
Other95.8%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

JG
Manager of Central Excellence at Alpura
Easy to set up with good documentation and easy management of testing cycles
The solution allows for a complete test cycle. The management of testing cycles are easy. We have good control over test cases. We can capture functional testing very easily. We're actually able to accelerate testing now and have end-to-end cycles for testing. We didn't used to have these capabilities. It's easy to automate and accelerate testing. The product offers very good cross-browser testing capabilities. We can do continuous testing and regression testing.
Luis Sanchez - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Assurance Test Engineer at Dormakaba
Helps in data, regression, performance, security, and functional testing
ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution.

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, as you get a single frame of reporting across all the various tests and the program is very user-friendly."
"The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation."
"It speeds up testing efforts."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"With the help of SilkTest we've automated a bunch of routine regression tests, thus we saved our testing team weeks of testing time."
"It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"Using this DLL functionality we were able to automate our product."
"We chose this tool because it's lightweight, simple and intuitive."
"For us this has meant increased test coverage, better system security, less test execution time and above all a greater quality product."
"In my personal experience, Soap UI NG Pro added a lot of value to our product."
"Using this solution, we developed tests about three times faster than we did with Java and by doing manual REST reverse engineering from product code (Java)."
"The ability to analyse and simulate web services are clearly the main value."
"We can test as many APIs as we like, it's very reliable and very easy to understand, anyone can learn it very quickly."
"The tool’s scalability is very good."
"One of the main things that's great is the excellent integration into the DevOps tool-chain and the reuse of code between SoapUI and LoadUI."
 

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."
"Implementing a better integration with Git. It was extremely painful to implement the link from Silk Central to Git."
"I've seen a lot of potential users upset with the SilkTest due to broken installation."
"Need to improve online documentation, community and forums to share issues encountered and solutions."
"SilkTest has to improve on Firefox and Chrome as their versions change."
"The pricing could be improved."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"I think their user-information sites should be better defined by SoapUI. For example, if I want to hit that virtualize server, let's say, with a 100K load — what is the bare minimum requirement?"
"ReadyAPI Test needs to improve its reporting. While reports provide essential information when issues arise, or tests fail, having more graphical representations directly within the reports would be beneficial. It needs to improve stability and scalability as well. The tool's support is slow, and takes months to reach a solution."
"Sometimes it would get stuck, so we had to close ReadyAPI and then start it again."
"I am never going to buy SoapUI, far too expensive."
"The UI should be improved a little."
 

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 is not that bad."
"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."
"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."
"SoapUI Pro is open source but it has a subscription-based model which involves some more features. At the moment we are using the free version. The Pro version requires a license, and it is an annual license to use it."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"It is free of charge."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
14%
Marketing Services Firm
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise20
 

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.
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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
SoapUI NG Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. ReadyAPI Test and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.