Compare Silk Test vs. SmartBear TestComplete

Silk Test is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 3 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews. Silk Test is rated 7.4, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "Good regressions tool, SoapUI tools, and cross-browser capabilities". Silk Test is most compared with UFT (QTP), LoadRunner and Selenium HQ, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Ranorex Studio, UFT (QTP) and Katalon Studio. See our Silk Test vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Silk Test Logo
5,217 views|3,668 comparisons
SmartBear TestComplete Logo
19,747 views|12,945 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Silk Test vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,196 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.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.

Read more »

The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing.The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers.The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools.The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps.The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find.Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional.Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution.

Read more »

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

Read more »

The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation.The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS.The artificial intelligence needs to be improved.What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing.Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work.Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover.Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team.The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive.Our ROI is about $10,000 a year.TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
382,196 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
17th
Views
5,217
Comparisons
3,668
Reviews
3
Average Words per Review
626
Avg. Rating
7.3
4th
Views
19,747
Comparisons
12,945
Reviews
5
Average Words per Review
384
Avg. Rating
8.6
Top Comparisons
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Also Known As
Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test, Silk Performer
Learn
Micro Focus
SmartBear
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.

TestComplete is a powerful and robust automated testing tool for mobileweb and desktop  applications. Quickly and easily create accurate and repeatable tests across multiple devices, platforms and environments – regardless of experience level. It supports multiple languages, modern control sets and integrates with open source frameworks and tools like Selenium, SoapUI and Jenkins.

Offer
Learn more about Silk Test
Learn more about SmartBear TestComplete
Sample Customers
Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG TechnologiesCisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company43%
Insurance Company12%
Comms Service Provider12%
Retailer5%
REVIEWERS
Software R&D Company18%
Retailer12%
Comms Service Provider12%
Manufacturing Company12%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Financial Services Firm10%
Manufacturing Company10%
Insurance Company6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business18%
Midsize Enterprise27%
Large Enterprise55%
REVIEWERS
Small Business13%
Midsize Enterprise38%
Large Enterprise49%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business13%
Midsize Enterprise33%
Large Enterprise54%
Find out what your peers are saying about Silk Test vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,196 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email