Compare Silk Test vs. SmartBear TestComplete

Silk Test is ranked 14th in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete which is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 9 reviews. Silk Test is rated 7.6, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 8.2. 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 "The automated test farm of 20 virtual machines for execution, 20 TestComplete licenses and 20 automated testers are doing the job of 100 manual testers". 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
10,020 views|3,576 comparisons
SmartBear TestComplete Logo
39,910 views|12,988 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Silk Test vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
359,658 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.

Read more »

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.Selenium integration.It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems.The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight).TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications.

Read more »

Cons
The support for automation with iOS applications can be better.

Read more »

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.Error handling features in the tool are a little limited.The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools.We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses.TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services.

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 »

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.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.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
359,658 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
14th
Views
10,020
Comparisons
3,576
Reviews
2
Average Words per Review
747
Avg. Rating
7.5
5th
Views
39,910
Comparisons
12,988
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
387
Avg. Rating
8.0
Top Comparisons
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 20% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 13% 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
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Software R&D Company13%
Retailer13%
Comms Service Provider13%
Manufacturing Company13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm23%
Manufacturing Company22%
Retailer8%
Non Tech Company7%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business20%
Midsize Enterprise30%
Large Enterprise50%
REVIEWERS
Small Business12%
Midsize Enterprise39%
Large Enterprise49%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business11%
Midsize Enterprise28%
Large Enterprise61%
Find out what your peers are saying about Silk Test vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
359,658 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