OpenText Silk Test vs SmartBear TestComplete 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 SmartBear TestComplete 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
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature.""The feature I like most is the ease of reporting.""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 major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities.""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.""A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."

More OpenText Silk Test Pros →

"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems.""The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing.""TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool.""The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup.""The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find.""It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows.""The solution has a very nice interface.""The product has many features."

More SmartBear TestComplete Pros →

Cons
"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.""The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies.""Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side.""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."

More OpenText Silk Test Cons →

"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better.""At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors.""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.""The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools.""Right now, when you buy the solution, you need to pay for one solution. You receive one set up and you install it and it's just in that one machine. It would be ideal if they could offer one subscription where you can connect to different machines with a group subscription.""What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing.""This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail.""SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."

More SmartBear TestComplete 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 product is becoming more and more expensive."
  • "My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
  • "The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
  • "Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
  • "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."
  • "This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
  • "The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
  • "The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
  • More SmartBear TestComplete 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:This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to… more »
    Top Answer:There are certain challenges related to the license management system in place. It comes with a high cost. An annual price is around four thousand five hundred plus per user, whereas UiPath is only… more »
    Top Answer:At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has… more »
    Ranking
    13th
    Views
    1,439
    Comparisons
    994
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    6th
    Views
    5,866
    Comparisons
    4,123
    Reviews
    8
    Average Words per Review
    502
    Rating
    7.1
    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.

    What is SmartBear TestComplete?

    TestComplete is a reliable, sturdy automated testing platform created by SmartBear Software. SmartBear Software is a worldwide technological leader known for developing quality enterprise-class development and testing solutions.

    TestComplete simplifies the process of creating tests for numerous applications, including, but not limited to; Desktop, Android, IOS, Web browsers, and Windows. Application tests can be manual, scripted, and even recorded by using keyword-driven or data-driven functionality. There are even additional options for error reporting and automated playback. The object repository is extremely accurate and is fully customizable. TestComplete can easily be used by experienced developers and even by manual novice testers to develop quality automated UI tests quickly.

    TestComplete offers three different testing scenarios:

    • Desktop: Users can easily and quickly automate UI tests using today’s most popular desktop applications, such as; Windows, Java, Python,.Net, VBScript, and more.

    • Web: Users can effortlessly create renewable tests for all of today’s popular web applications, including JavaScript frameworks on 2000+ trusted browser and platform integrations.

    • Mobile: Users can safely build and automate serviceable UI tests on actual or virtual android or IOS devices, locally or in the cloud. Users can create code or codeless tests. TestComplete seamlessly integrates with many of today’s popular frameworks.

    Key Features

    • Easily create automated UI tests: TestComplete offers scriptless Record and Replay or simple keyword-driven tests to quickly develop any type of UI test users may require. Tests can be recorded once, then replayed when needed across various applications on mobile, web, or desktop environments. TestComplete integrates with many different languages, such as Java, Python, C+, and more.

    • Keyword driven tests: Users can easily divide testing steps, actions, objects, and data with an integrated keyword-driven test structure. This makes it easy for every user to participate in the test automation process; there is no programming experience needed. Everything is made simple with easy-to-use point-and-click options.

    • Data driven tests: Easily distinguish data from test commands to keep administrative efforts simple. Users can improve overall coverage by running various automated mobile, desktop, or web UI tests.

    • Record and Replay: Users can reuse created automated tests across every environment as often as desired. This helps to expand overall test coverage and represents a huge cost and time savings.

    Reviews from Real Users

    Sandhiya T S., Sr Solutions Engineer at Lexington Soft, relates, “The record and replay aspects of the solution are quite useful for people. With them, you don't have to write any scripts. Basically, you can record your actions and play them back later. The initial setup is also very easy.”

    Sai S R., Staff Test Architect at a tech services company, says, "The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them."

    Sample Customers
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
    Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company20%
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company32%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company19%
    Manufacturing Company11%
    Financial Services Firm11%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise69%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business28%
    Midsize Enterprise28%
    Large Enterprise44%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    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 SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 6th in Regression Testing Tools with 70 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Apache JMeter, OpenText UFT Developer and froglogic Squish, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish.

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