We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Test and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The statistics that are available are very good."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"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."
"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."
"We are satisfied with technical support. Communicating with them is very simple. We also have a lot of online resources to check and to study and to train our team with. The documentation is very clear and readily available."
"The solution is very useful for compiling existing projects and developing new projects."
"The most valuable features are the SSIS reports, the deployment models, and the ability to interact with other Microsoft tools."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"The setup is easy and straightforward."
"Visual Studio is highly powerful. It's probably the best software development tool on the market."
"The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects."
"The solution is very stable; there's nothing in relation to stability to complain about."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"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."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"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."
"It is hard to learn, and you need to invest time to understand it."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
"Its UI could be better."
"Over the years, I haven't identified any specific enhancements that I desire; Visual Studio has consistently met my requirements seamlessly and flawlessly."
"The product must provide more integration."
"The data flow can be improved."
"The solution's deployment is not very easy and should be made easier."
"The database administration could be better; you should be able to choose new tools with the development environment in Visual Studio. It could be easier to use."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
OpenText Silk Test is ranked 25th in Functional Testing Tools while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT One.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.
