Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Silk Test vs Selenium HQ 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
20th
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 (16th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.6%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.3%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Selenium HQ3.3%
OpenText Silk Test1.6%
Other95.1%
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.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.

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."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"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."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
 

Cons

"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"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."
"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 support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"There is a need for an auto-healing feature that can address script failures due to changes in the front end."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
 

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."
"It is an open-source product, it is free for anyone to use."
"Selenium is open-source."
"Selenium is open-source, so there are no setup costs associated with it."
"Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers."
"It is free to use."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"The product is open-source and free."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Marketing Services Firm
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare 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 Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise51
 

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.
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.