OpenText Silk Test vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

OpenText and Progress Software are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.0, while Progress Software is ranked #24. OpenText holds a 1.5% mindshare in FT, compared to Progress Software’s 1.4% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Progress Software users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,149 Views
827 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

Telerik Test Studio

Read 5 Telerik Test Studio reviews

1,219 Views
744 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

Telerik Test Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and Telerik Test Studio compete in automated testing solutions. Telerik Test Studio often has the upper hand due to its comprehensive feature set.

Features: OpenText Silk Test offers powerful cross-platform testing, extensive application support, and an effective object-oriented approach. It supports both record & playback and descriptive programming. Telerik Test Studio provides an intuitive scripting environment, seamless integration with Visual Studio, and effective PDF validation features.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could improve in ease of deployment, user interface enhancements, and cloud-based support. Telerik Test Studio could benefit from improvements in detailed reporting options, advanced scheduling capabilities, and enhanced cross-browser testing.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Telerik Test Studio enables seamless cloud-based deployment and responsive customer support. OpenText Silk Test offers a more traditional deployment model, requiring more setup time but providing comprehensive support options.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test has a higher initial setup cost, offset by long-term reliability. Telerik Test Studio offers flexible pricing models with a rapid return on investment and lower setup costs, making it more cost-efficient in many scenarios.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. Telerik Test Studio Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. Telerik Test Studio

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

8th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Telerik Test Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

24th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

11th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

26th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Load Testing Tools (14th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.5%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.4%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Silk Test	1.5%
Telerik Test Studio	1.4%
Other	97.1%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Jose Alfredo Garcia

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.

Read full review

Chirag N M

Senior Quality Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

Supports multiple platforms and identifies elements in a good way

Instead of Telerik Test Studio, I'd recommend writing test cases in .Net so that in the future, if you move away from Telerik Test Studio to another tool, it would be easier for you. Your current code would be reusable. You won't have to change your test cases much. We wrote our code in a separate IDE, which was Visual Studio, and internally, we had the infrastructure to interact with Telerik Test Studio. All the internal logic that we needed for our purpose was implemented in .NET, and we used Telerik Test Studio for tests. I'd rate Telerik Test Studio an eight out of ten.

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

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

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

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

"The statistics that are available are very good."

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

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

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

"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."

"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."

"The performance and load testing are very good."

"The way it identifies elements is good."

"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."

Cons

"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."

"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."

"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 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."

"The pricing could be improved."

"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."

"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."

"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."

"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."

"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."

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 pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

19%

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	10

No data available

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 18% of the time

Qt Squish vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 10% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 9% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

Selenium HQ vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 15% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 7% of the time

UBIK Load Pack vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 6% of the time

More Telerik Test Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

January 2026

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

December 2025

Download Telerik Test Studio product report

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test

No data available

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

Telerik Test Studio is an innovative and easy-to-use automated web, WPF and load testing solution. Test Studio tests support essential technologies like ASP.NET AJAX, Silverlight, PHP and MVC. Test Studio functional testing is a comprehensive yet cost-effective automated testing suite. Users can complete tasks quickly and easily with the product's point-and-click interface, which is augmented by Telerik-exclusive features like a visual storyboard and 3D element selection. Test Studio also offers script-less test automation for Silverlight applications. Test Studio load tests allow users to capture quickly capture, multiply and replay complex web traffic. Record HTTP traffic from desktop browsers, mobile devices and web services, and replay traffic with hundreds or thousands of virtual users spread across multiple machines. Fine-tune your load scenario with data binding, user authentication, and dynamic targets. Test Studio Mobile is an intuitive and easy to use test automation solution for Mobile application testing. Create tests once and test across multiple devices and OS's. The point and click functionality allows users to capture quickly and replay complex mobile testing functionality. There is no need to write a single line of code. Test against any number of real devices as you wish or through an emulator by connecting through Wifi. Test Studio for APIs helps customers verify the integrity and reliability of their APIs in an easy way and incorporate their API testing effort in their continuous testing and delivery process. Test Studio for APIs is used to determine whether APIs return the correct response for a broad range of commonly accepted requests, react properly to edge cases such as failures and unexpected inputs, as well as deliver the responses in an acceptable amount of time.

Progress Software

Sample Customers

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

Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. Telerik Test Studio

January 2026

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. Telerik Test Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. Telerik Test Studio report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.