We performed a comparison between Eggplant Test and OpenText Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The features that we like the most are the developer interface and the ability to quickly develop and deploy tests."
"The most valuable features of Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence are bug hunting and OCR technology."
"The most valuable features would be the image recognition and the OCR."
"We did see a massive return on investment from using Eggplant."
"The main feature of Eggplant Test is that it can do fully automated web testing and app testing."
"Everything is happening on the layout or display that is used by the user. Eggplant prompts processes, like 'click here,' or 'look for this image.' Eggplant makes it possible for QA people and BAs, working in the actual display, to check if the software is providing the right images, the right text, and the right results. They don't have to go inside the code or to the TCP/IP layer. Everything is happening at the highest level."
"GUI testing is the strength of the tool. The tool works as expected, and the support response from eggPlant, as a company, has been quick and substantial."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create code from a flow chart, and then run the code through it."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"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."
"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 ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The IDE could be even more full-featured. Because I was a developer, I was very spoiled by either Visual Studio Code or Visual Studio for shortcuts. For example, I was able to say "ctor" and hit Tab and it would create a template of a constructor for me... It would be great, when I want to create a new function, if there were shortcut commands like those that helped create all of the functions, or if there were shortcut features to do any of the complex plans."
"Its performance and stability could be better."
"In terms of additional features, it would be helpful to have one package for all testing. You have the manager, the AI, then you have functional, and about 10 different packages for installing."
"If one area could be improved, it would be some of their documentation. In particular, some of their online help and user support documentation is a little bit out of date and could be revised and updated on a more frequent basis. Other than that, I haven't really found any issues or problems."
"The solution would crash from time to time."
"The language is too specific; it is just for Eggplant."
"We found that we had issues regarding the VPN setup, which is one of the reasons that we did not purchase this solution."
"They need to update the Linux. I think it's kind of an outdated Java Swing application."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"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."
"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 solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
Earn 20 points
Eggplant Test is ranked 12th in Test Automation Tools with 16 reviews while OpenText Silk Test is ranked 24th in Test Automation Tools. Eggplant Test is rated 7.8, while OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Eggplant Test writes "Empowers effective test automation with comprehensive platform coverage and scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". Eggplant Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, froglogic Squish and SmartBear TestComplete, whereas OpenText Silk Test is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish. See our Eggplant Test vs. OpenText Silk Test report.
See our list of best Test Automation 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.