OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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 OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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: March 2024).
765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
SrinivasPakala
Jacques Vermeulen
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities.""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 statistics that are available are very good.""A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing.""The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature.""The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."

More OpenText Silk Test Pros →

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization.""The product is easy to use.""The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time.""There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps.""It is a complete solution for mobile application testing.""The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Pros →

Cons
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better.""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 solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies.""Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side.""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.""Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."

More OpenText Silk Test Cons →

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement.""We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it.""They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model.""I would like to see more integration with automation tools.""We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it.""For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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 →

  • "OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."
  • "The product could be more affordable."
  • "While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."
  • More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Top Answer:There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps.
    Top Answer:I believe there's always room for improvement in various aspects. For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate… more »
    Top Answer:There are various use cases, each tailored to the specific needs of our customers. When we consider Application Lifecycle Management (ALM), the use case significantly differs from Unified Functional… more »
    Ranking
    25th
    Views
    1,767
    Comparisons
    1,205
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    20th
    Views
    789
    Comparisons
    546
    Reviews
    2
    Average Words per Review
    470
    Rating
    8.5
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
    Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center
    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.
    Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.
    Sample Customers
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
    Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company20%
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Computer Software Company19%
    Energy/Utilities Company8%
    Retailer7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise69%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business25%
    Midsize Enterprise13%
    Large Enterprise63%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business11%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise77%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    March 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: March 2024.
    765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    OpenText Silk Test is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is ranked 20th in Functional Testing Tools with 15 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText UFT Digital Lab writes "Robust solution for application lifecycle management with numerous valuable features". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Apache JMeter, OpenText UFT Developer and SmartBear TestComplete, whereas OpenText UFT Digital Lab is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Appium, AWS Device Farm, Perfecto and Sauce Labs.

    See our list of best Functional 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.