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 (20th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
6th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.0%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.6%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SrinivasPakala - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
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 scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"It's easy to automate and accelerate testing."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"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 statistics that are available are very good."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"The stability and performance are good."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
 

Cons

"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 pricing could be improved."
"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 solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"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."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"The solution could be improved regarding communication with browsers, as it is slower and a bit tricky compared to other frameworks. However, with the latest changes involving BiDirectional communication, it is becoming a top choice in automation frameworks."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"The reporting part can be better."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
 

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."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"It is free to use."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
"Selenium is free software so we do not pay licensing costs."
"The setup cost is open source or free."
"Selenium is a free tool."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Retailer
5%
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

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.
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 do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
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.
 

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: May 2025.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.