We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Test and ReadyAPI based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."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."
"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 feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The great thing about ReadyAPI is that it has a wide variety of functions. You can test any API that you come across. You are not limited to one type of API. It supports many APIs."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."
"ReadyAPI's best features are user-friendliness, smooth integration with Postman, the speed of creating test cases, and integration with customer data."
"It is the best solution you can get across the globe for API, test automation, and API penetration testing."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the drag-and-drop options and the integration with versioning tool solutions, such as Git."
"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."
"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."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"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."
"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 UI should be flexible. Currently, the UI isn't."
"Version control does not work well."
"The UI is not user-friendly."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"ReadyAPI could improve by adding a conversion tool from one file type to another. Import support for multiple file types would be beneficial."
"It doesn't have connectors to the NoSQL database. This is one of the things where they do not have a very solid strategy today. Other solutions have an in-built mechanism where I can directly and easily connect. An API is more around a user submitting a request on the frontend. It then hits the backend, puts the data, and responds back. If I am hitting MongoDB or NoSQL databases, I do not have ready-made inbuilt solutions in ReadyAPI that can easily help me in automating it faster. In our organization, we deal with NoSQL databases, and therefore, we need Groovy. We just cannot have a connector from ReadyAPI to do that. I have to write Groovy scripts. If you have themes that are predominantly using MongoDB, it leads to more maintenance and support activity because we are introducing more code into our commission. In terms of additional features, it can have cloud support. This is one of the things where we are getting into cloud support. We'll see how it works, but it is one of the doubts that we still have."
"The initial setup could be less complex."
"In terms of features, I have already raised different change requests on the ReadyAPI side. One of the largest functions I've requested is the validation of the payload for the REST APIs."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Silk Test is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while ReadyAPI is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter and froglogic Squish, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, ReadyAPI Test and SmartBear TestComplete.
See our list of best Functional 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.