It was implemented to solve a very large and specific test scenario with 24,000 test cases. It did that, and the company was quite happy with this solution, but it did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. So, we moved to Ranorex. We've now canceled the maintenance for Silk.

That one test scenario has been very valuable. We still use the data results from that. We used it to validate Ranorex. It has helped keep the company on the automated test path.

The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities. This was the major reason for going with Silk Test. The people are happy using it and the end results are provided in a short span of time.

Our deployment process is not very long, where one automated process takes approximately one to two weeks to complete a six hundred step manual test case.

We had in-house UI objects build for our product and using the DLL functionality we were able to write Object class for those objects (Similar to creating Xpath for objects in Selenium). No other tool was available at that time which supported this. Using this DLL functionality we were able to automate our product.

With the help of SilkTest we've automated a bunch of routine regression tests. Thus we saved our testing team weeks of testing time.

No, I can't, since we've not implemented this for anything but that evaluation task / proof of concept.

It speeds up testing efforts.

It's easy to use and good for regression and sanity testing.

Not many performance Testing tool provides end to end response times for scripts running on the page, this tool is capable of providing end to end real time browser response times.

It drastically reduced our manual regression efforts that is difficult to achieve in Agile model