OpenText Silk Test vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

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

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, SeleniumHQ and others in Regression Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Regression Testing Tools Report (Updated: March 2024).
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
SrinivasPakala
Raghvendra Jyothi
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"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.""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 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.""A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."

More OpenText Silk Test Pros →

"The way it identifies elements is good.""Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution.""Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me.""The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface.""The performance and load testing are very good."

More Telerik Test Studio Pros →

Cons
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration.""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.""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.""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 →

"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously.""There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test.""The charts need to be more detailed and customizable.""I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding.""Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."

More Telerik Test Studio Cons →

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 →

  • "The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
  • More Telerik Test Studio Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer:The way it identifies elements is good.
    Top Answer:Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy. In addition, sometimes, tests used to fail intermittently. These were the two disadvantages.
    Top Answer:Instead of Telerik Test Studio, I'd recommend writing test cases in .Net so that in the future, if you move away from Telerik Test Studio to another tool, it would be easier for you. Your current code… more »
    Ranking
    13th
    Views
    1,439
    Comparisons
    994
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    9th
    Views
    1,427
    Comparisons
    945
    Reviews
    4
    Average Words per Review
    619
    Rating
    8.0
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
    Learn More
    Overview
    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.
    Telerik Test Studio is an innovative and easy-to-use automated web, WPF and load testing solution. Test Studio tests support essential technologies like ASP.NET AJAX, Silverlight, PHP and MVC. Test Studio functional testing is a comprehensive yet cost-effective automated testing suite. Users can complete tasks quickly and easily with the product's point-and-click interface, which is augmented by Telerik-exclusive features like a visual storyboard and 3D element selection. Test Studio also offers script-less test automation for Silverlight applications. Test Studio load tests allow users to capture quickly capture, multiply and replay complex web traffic. Record HTTP traffic from desktop browsers, mobile devices and web services, and replay traffic with hundreds or thousands of virtual users spread across multiple machines. Fine-tune your load scenario with data binding, user authentication, and dynamic targets. Test Studio Mobile is an intuitive and easy to use test automation solution for Mobile application testing. Create tests once and test across multiple devices and OS's. The point and click functionality allows users to capture quickly and replay complex mobile testing functionality. There is no need to write a single line of code. Test against any number of real devices as you wish or through an emulator by connecting through Wifi. Test Studio for APIs helps customers verify the integrity and reliability of their APIs in an easy way and incorporate their API testing effort in their continuous testing and delivery process. Test Studio for APIs is used to determine whether APIs return the correct response for a broad range of commonly accepted requests, react properly to edge cases such as failures and unexpected inputs, as well as deliver the responses in an acceptable amount of time.
    Sample Customers
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
    Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company20%
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company21%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Government11%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise69%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise14%
    Large Enterprise62%
    Buyer's Guide
    Regression Testing Tools
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, SeleniumHQ and others in Regression Testing Tools. Updated: March 2024.
    765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText Silk Test is ranked 13th in Regression Testing Tools while Telerik Test Studio is ranked 9th in Regression Testing Tools with 5 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Apache JMeter, OpenText UFT Developer and SmartBear TestComplete, whereas Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio and Tricentis Tosca.

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

    We monitor all Regression 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.