OpenText Silk Test vs ZAPTEST comparison

OpenText and ZAPTEST are both solutions in the Test Automation Tools category. OpenText is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.0, while ZAPTEST is ranked #27. OpenText holds a 1.5% mindshare in TAt, compared to ZAPTEST’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of ZAPTEST users who would recommend it.

OpenText Silk Test

Read 17 OpenText Silk Test reviews

1,407 Views
900 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

ZAPTEST

Read 7 ZAPTEST reviews

786 Views
519 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

OpenText Silk Test

ZAPTEST

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText Silk Test and ZAPTEST compete in automated testing solutions. Based on feature set and compatibility, ZAPTEST appears to have an edge, particularly in environments requiring broad platform support.

Features: OpenText Silk Test offers scriptless testing for seamless system integration and effective cross-browser testing. It supports various languages, including Java and C#. Its script recording capability helps users deploy tests effortlessly. ZAPTEST stands out with a single-script methodology used for both functional and performance testing across many environments. ZAPTEST also includes a distinctive feature for executing regression test scripts across GUI-based systems. Its OCR feature supports precise object identification, extending its usability.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Silk Test could enhance user interface intuitiveness and streamline its object-oriented framework. Its cross-platform capabilities might benefit from further enhancements to match competitors. Reducing resource footprint during large test case executions could be improved. ZAPTEST may improve by refining its OCR accuracy and enhancing integration with newer software environments. Additional documentation for complex scripting scenarios would benefit users. Support for non-GUI based automation would expand its utility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Silk Test supports straightforward deployment with comprehensive support for smooth adoption. ZAPTEST offers a rapid deployment model focusing on extensive training resources, creating a robust onboarding process. Both provide quality customer service, but ZAPTEST's documentation offers flexible learning for new users.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Silk Test involves more upfront investment, but scalability and integration capabilities ensure substantial ROI. ZAPTEST requires significant initial investment but provides cost-efficiency with its cross-platform offerings and streamlined functionality, often resulting in long-term savings.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Silk Test vs. ZAPTEST Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. ZAPTEST

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 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 Test Automation Tools

17th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (8th)

ZAPTEST

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

29th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

27th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ZAPTEST is 1.1%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test	1.5%
ZAPTEST	1.1%
Other	97.4%

Test Automation 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

it_user362916

System engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees

We can write our codes just after the functional docs are prepared, and we can straight away start testing the application in the system testing phase itself.

* Using this tool, we can automate test cases even before the deployment of an application. This can be done by scanning objects from UI mock-ups or screenshots. * One script multi-run technology reduces scripting effort and budget by which you can run one unique script to test multiple platforms. * We can write one code and run it in multiple browsers (Chrome, IE, Firefox anything) and operating systems (Android, Windows, anything). * PDF validation, average colour validation, etc. are better and stable. * We can literally automate anything (not necessarily web applications) using ZAPTEST as it works exactly as a human eye and doesn't dig into application codes. * Partial OCR and block recognization are game changers. * JIRA and ALM integration

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

"Using this DLL functionality we were able to automate our product."

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

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

"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."

"It speeds up testing efforts."

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

"With the help of SilkTest we've automated a bunch of routine regression tests, thus we saved our testing team weeks of testing time."

"The statistics that are available are very good."

More OpenText Silk Test pros

"The biggest thing this product has done for us is allow us to automate a feature that other commercial and open source tools couldn't do for us."

"Customer service is excellent."

"Our ROI is 100%."

"Using ZAPTEST, we can write our codes just after the functional docs are prepared, and we can straight away start testing the application in the system testing phase itself."

"Customer Service: This is where they truly shine! If we suggest a feature, a new version appears in days with that feature fully realized and working."

"On average, I get two cycles per week and that only requires the attention of two people; it saves us a lot of time and gets us to production quicker."

Cons

"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

"The browser based testing needs to be improved."

"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."

"At that time, we never had good technical support in Bangalore."

"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."

"The pricing could be improved."

"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

"GUI interface could be simpler for non-developers."

More OpenText Silk Test cons

"The documentation is not keeping up with the rapid development, and updates are very fast."

"I would say the test results features could be made more advanced with options like pie charts, graphs, etc. To be able to visualize the data would be helpful to us."

"The save function should be fixed so that I no longer have to add a space to a step and then follow it with a backspace to reenable the save icon."

"We cannot have more than one Object Repository for one test."

"We have used multiple data files types as inputs to our existing automation and this product is currently only supporting CSV."

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."

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Insurance Company

Marketing Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

23%

Outsourcing Company

11%

Healthcare Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	5

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 10% of the time

Selenium HQ vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 7% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 7% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 5% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText Silk Test

Compared 5% of the time

More OpenText Silk Test Competitors

SmartBear TestComplete vs ZAPTEST

Compared 14% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs ZAPTEST

Compared 12% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs ZAPTEST

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs ZAPTEST

Compared 8% of the time

More ZAPTEST Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test

March 2026

Download OpenText Silk Test product report

Buyer's Guide

ZAPTEST

February 2026

Download ZAPTEST 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

ZAPTEST is software test automation solution for testing applications cross-platform. ZAPTEST allows testing any GUI based software on any modern OS mobile or conventional that includes iOS; Android; WinMo; Blackberry; Windows; Mac; and Linux. ZAP 1Script technology allows users to script test procedure once and execute it on any correspondent application on any platform and environment. ZAP MultiRun technology offers execution of the same test script on multiple workstations and mobile devices at once, and expedites time to test execution. zapFARM offers mobile and conventional device management, by using distributed and multi-site devices and management of devices and users. ZAPTEST is software test automation solution for testing applications cross-platform. ZAPTEST allows testing of any GUI based software on any modern OS, mobile or conventional including iOS; Android; WinMo; Blackberry; Windows; Mac; and Linux, as well as supports testing of Agile and CI development. ZAP main technologies are ZAPTEST; ZAP-fiX; MultiRun; and zapFARM With over 15 years of industry experience implementing test automation processes ZAP also offers professional help to allows enterprises with testing best practices implementing ZAPTEST. Using ZAPTEST test automation teams reducing time to test development and maintenance, expedite test execution cross-platform and manage devices under test remotely within organization

ZAPTEST

Sample Customers

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

AT&T, Ally Financial, Inc. Standard & Poors, Comcast, Boeing Employee Credit Union, Nordstroms, Bank of New Zealand, Aviva France, Delta Airlines, First National Bank of South Africa, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, American Well, SuperValu, 24 Hour Fitness, Inc., Lexis Nexis, Cspire Wireless, GE Intelligent Systems, Accenture, Shelter Mutual Insurance, Agco

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Silk Test vs. ZAPTEST

March 2026

Free Report: OpenText Silk Test vs. ZAPTEST

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. ZAPTEST and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Silk Test vs. ZAPTEST report.

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

We monitor all Test Automation 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.