BrowserStack vs OpenText Silk Test comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
BrowserStack Logo
8,670 views|6,779 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo
1,659 views|1,135 comparisons
93% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and OpenText Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
769,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The integration is very good.""I have found that BrowserStack is stable.""The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices.""The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful.""The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.""Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development.""The most valuable features are the variety of tools available.""BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."

More BrowserStack Pros →

"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 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.""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."

More OpenText Silk Test Pros →

Cons
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close.""There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required.""BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico.""We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues.""The solution is slow.""Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier.""I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product.""It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."

More BrowserStack Cons →

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

More OpenText Silk Test Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "This solution costs less than competing products."
  • "The price is fine."
  • "There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
  • "BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
  • "The price of BrowserStack is high."
  • "Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
  • "My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
  • "As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
  • More BrowserStack 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."
  • More OpenText Silk Test Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    769,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
    Top Answer:My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
    Top Answer:I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    4th
    Views
    8,670
    Comparisons
    6,779
    Reviews
    14
    Average Words per Review
    372
    Rating
    8.0
    26th
    Views
    1,659
    Comparisons
    1,135
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
    Learn More
    Overview
    BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.
    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.
    Sample Customers
    Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, MÂȘller, AVG Technologies
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company55%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Marketing Services Firm9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Retailer7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company21%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Manufacturing Company8%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business30%
    Midsize Enterprise26%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise67%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise13%
    Large Enterprise69%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    769,976 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText Silk Test is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Bitbar, whereas OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish.

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