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

OpenText Silk Test vs ReadyAPI Test comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
22nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (20th)
ReadyAPI Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
20th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.2%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI Test is 2.3%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ReadyAPI Test2.3%
OpenText Silk Test2.2%
Other95.5%
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

"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."
"SilkTest is best for desktop applications and good for web applications also with the Open agent."
"The Silk4J feature is the solution's most valuable aspect."
"Not many performance Testing tool provides end to end response times for scripts running on the page, this tool is capable of providing end to end real time browser response times."
"It is a fine product; it is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment."
"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's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"I think this is a very easy tool to use for automated tests to run in a CI environment."
"For us this has meant increased test coverage, better system security, less test execution time and above all a greater quality product."
"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."
"The ability to analyse and simulate web services are clearly the main value."
"We are using SoapUI Pro as an API testing tool, and we do API building, testing, and tracking."
"It adds to the productivity of developers and QAs, so there is definitely a return."
 

Cons

"At that time, we never had good technical support in Bangalore."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help."
"At the moment, when we are trying to use this tool, we are finding quite a few compatibility issues between the tool and the applications on the test. We wouldn't consider it perfectly stable for that reason."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The pricing could be improved."
"GUI interface could be simpler for non-developers."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"SilkTest has to improve on Firefox and Chrome as their versions change."
"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?"
"The current interface is unsatisfactory."
"In the LoadUI companion the scripts are not user friendly, and it also has a slow startup time."
"When it comes to scalability, SoapUI has some room for improvement right now."
"SoapUI Pro is a little heavy due to the number of features. Previously it was not that heavy."
"SoapUI Pro could improve by having dashboards."
"Automation features are not user-friendly."
"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."
 

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."
"The cost is not that bad."
"ReadyAPI Test is expensive, and I rate its pricing a four out of ten."
"ReadyAPI Test is about $680 per user, per year."
"It is free of charge."
"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."
"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."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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
 

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: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.