We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Test and Sauce Labs based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Test Automation Tools."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 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 ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The solution they provide is very robust. We can quickly connect to their environment with the hub URL. They have a URL that has the entire grid of desktops, web browsers, and mobile devices. They also provide real devices, so you just provide the URL and test your application."
"Allows us to do JIRA Cloud and BambooHR Integration."
"It offers the single best solution for integrating deep automated browser testing in a CI/CD pipeline."
"Our machines are mostly Windows. Being able to test with Safari, on a Mac, and other types of browser pieces without having to manage all the infrastructure is the biggest feature that our team enjoys."
"Easy to integrate with the other platform for tracking purposes."
"I find that the multitude of browser and OS versions are very helpful for broadening testing scope."
"So far, the stability has proven to be quite good."
"The Failure Analysis feature is really important for us, one of the most important aspects. What is the root cause? Is it because we have a defect or is it that we have a test case that we need to fix or modify? The Failure Analysis is one of the main functionalities that I am exploring all the time in Sauce Labs... The Failure Analysis helps us to discover which test cases we need to work on."
"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 solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"I can't remove team members that have left the organization. I can only set them as inactive. It would be really nice to clean up my data and delete them from the team management."
"I would like for there to be more detail in regards to the quality of our code i.e. how many failures occurred, how many passed based on industry standard metrics, etc."
"It should provide more examples of script code."
"Sauce Labs' dashboard could be improved by adding more filters and allowing more customization options. There was one instance where the dashboard on the Sauce Labs UI didn't meet our requirements, so we had to use the Sauce Labs API to create some apps and dashboards on our own. The API endpoints could be a little more robust and customizable."
"The one issue I have is the 14-day trial that a new user gets for free. I understand the concept of the trial period; however, I think this could be revamped to a free 30-minute run time every few months or after a significant update once the trial period has ended."
"Better and programmatic controls on request/response recordings and sharing with developers."
"We have faced challenges with the availability of mobile devices. There was once or twice where there were no mobile devices available."
"Progress towards reducing application testing time can be made."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Silk Test is ranked 24th in Test Automation Tools while Sauce Labs is ranked 13th in Test Automation Tools with 112 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while Sauce Labs is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sauce Labs writes "Robust documentation, helpful support representative, good licensing model". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish, whereas Sauce Labs is most compared with BrowserStack, Perfecto, LambdaTest, OpenText UFT One and Bitbar.
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.