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."The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"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."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"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 major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"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."
"The solution is slow."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"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."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
Earn 20 points
BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while OpenText Silk Test is ranked 25th 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, CrossBrowserTesting and Tricentis Tosca, 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.