We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"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."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"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."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"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."
Earn 20 points
QA Wizard Pro automates functional and regression testing of web, Windows, and Java applications, and load test web applications.
Perforce QA Wizard Pro is ranked 30th in Functional Testing Tools with 1 review while Silk Test is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. Perforce QA Wizard Pro is rated 5.0, while Silk Test is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Perforce QA Wizard Pro writes "Shared change lists are helpful, but poor scalability leads to problems with instability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". Perforce QA Wizard Pro is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter and Tricentis Tosca.
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.