• Home
  • Fabasoft app.test [EOL] vs. OpenText Silk Test

Fabasoft app.test [EOL] vs OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT One comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Fabasoft Logo

Fabasoft app.test [EOL]

views| comparisons
OpenText Logo

OpenText Silk Test

Read 16 OpenText Silk Test reviews
1,719 views|1,168 comparisons
93% willing to recommend
OpenText Logo

OpenText UFT One

Read 89 OpenText UFT One reviews
11,332 views|6,976 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Download the complete report
Buyer's Guide
Functional Testing Tools
April 2024
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Fabasoft app.test [EOL], OpenText Silk Test, and OpenText UFT One 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).
Download the complete report
768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Use Fabasoft app.test [EOL]?
SrinivasPakala
Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available
Don Ingerson
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then...
If your concerns go beyond automating tests to providing evidence that specific tests were executed, what the test pass/fail status was, the user... Read more →
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
  • "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 →

  • "It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
  • "The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
  • "It's an expensive solution."
  • "For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
  • "The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
  • "The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
  • "The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
  • "The price is one aspect that could be improved."

    • More OpenText UFT One Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    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
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Comparison Review
    Anonymous User
    QTP vs SilkTest WorkBench
    The last few months, I've been working with the Silk Tools (particularly the WorkBench .NET variant IDE) and I must say that I like what I've been using. The libraries provided by Silk are quite good for your typical automation and when you run into custom applications, the .NET IDE (which is based on the MS Visual Studio IDE) allows you to code purely in VB.NET. There are some limitations using WorkBench but they can completely removed when you switch completely to MS Visual Studio and import the Silk libraries. From an automation perspective, I'd say this is actually more powerful than QTP but for the majority of client engagements, QTP out of the box, can handle the engagement a lot more easily because it is catered to almost every situation. However, when it comes to the bang for your buck, I'd actually go with Silk/Borland! The only real problem comes down to the fact that you have very little online presence for the Silk products compared to HP's QTP. So finding solutions to problems requires more self help and reading of more technical articles than compared with finding solutions for QTP, as it has already been done and the code is most likely available online somewhere. So take what you want from this and if you have any questions, feel free to comment and I'll get back to you when I look at this next. Just in keep in mind, I'm talking in the broadest sense and what I've said may not apply to your current situation.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
    Top Answer:We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing MicroFocus… more »
    Read all 2 answers   →
    What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
    Top Answer:My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
    Read all 35 answers   →
    What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
    Top Answer:The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and… more »
    Read all 34 answers   →
    Ranking
    Unranked
    In Functional Testing Tools
    25th
    out of 47 in Functional Testing Tools
    Views
    1,719
    Comparisons
    1,168
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    2nd
    out of 47 in Functional Testing Tools
    Views
    11,332
    Comparisons
    6,976
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    694
    Rating
    7.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
    Micro Focus UFT One, UFT (QTP), Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro, QuickTest Professional, HPE UFT (QTP)
    Learn More
    Fabasoft
    OpenText
    OpenText
    Overview

    Fabasoft app.test is the tool for functional software test automation in the Fabasoft product realm. Fabasoft app.test focuses on the automation of tests in a way that simulates how a real user would interact with the applications, i.e. by driving the user interface in the web browser.

    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.
    Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications. Read white paper
    Sample Customers
    Envisage Information Systems, Computer Sciences Consulting, Österreichische Post AG
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
    Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
    Top Industries
    No Data Available
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company21%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Manufacturing Company8%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm32%
    Computer Software Company16%
    Insurance Company10%
    Healthcare Company10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company15%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Government6%
    Company Size
    No Data Available
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise13%
    Large Enterprise69%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise70%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business15%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise75%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Download Free Report
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    DOWNLOAD NOW
    768,578 professionals have used our research since 2012.