No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Silk Test vs Oracle Application Testing Suite comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Silk Test
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
22nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (13th), Test Automation Tools (20th)
Oracle Application Testing ...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Performance Testing Tools (14th), Load Testing Tools (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Silk Test is 2.1%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Application Testing Suite is 1.5%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Silk Test2.1%
Oracle Application Testing Suite1.5%
Other96.4%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

JG
Manager of Central Excellence at Alpura
Easy to set up with good documentation and easy management of testing cycles
The solution allows for a complete test cycle. The management of testing cycles are easy. We have good control over test cases. We can capture functional testing very easily. We're actually able to accelerate testing now and have end-to-end cycles for testing. We didn't used to have these capabilities. It's easy to automate and accelerate testing. The product offers very good cross-browser testing capabilities. We can do continuous testing and regression testing.
Rishabh-Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer at Cignity Technology
Requires little maintenance, is stable, and easy to deploy
Oracle Application Testing Suite can improve by covering more browsers as compared to other solutions because they're considering the Edge browser as well, but the solution is working on different Windows operating platforms. For example, in our current Windows 2012 R2 server, if I want to automate the Edge browser, I need to upgrade that particular Windows to Windows 10.1 or some other Windows platform, because it's not supported in Windows 2012 feature. That is an issue. If cross-browsers can be incorporated, then support should be provided. There should be a single operating system where everything can be incorporated. I have faced issues with some indexing items. For example, the solution is able to derive some properties from the screen, such as button locations or text locations, but there are some elements, for example, unnamed buttons or text, where there is no name or ID or any other identifying information. Indexing doesn't always work, and we have to go to those elements manually and inspect them to determine their class, and then input that information into the system.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"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."
"SilkTest is best for desktop applications and good for web applications also with the Open agent."
"With the help of SilkTest we've automated a bunch of routine regression tests, thus we saved our testing team weeks of testing time."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The solution is user-friendly with respect to automation."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"It is a fine product; it is a powerful tool, and it needs commitment."
"I can organize test scripts pretty well."
"The solution is scalable."
"Overall, since it comes with all the three packages, it's very good."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature, the recording feature is the prime feature that open script has, and I also like the connectivity with Oracle Forms as it is very compatible."
"The most valuable feature is the object identification feature."
"Oracle Application Testing Suite's most valuable feature is it works very smoothly with all Oracle Java-based applications."
"OATS provides the functionality to institute a corporate-wide standardized method and approach for all types of application testing."
"User friendly UI / Tree view to work with adding steps."
 

Cons

"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help."
"At that time, we never had good technical support in Bangalore."
"The browser based testing needs to be improved."
"I've seen a lot of potential users upset with the SilkTest due to broken installation."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"SilkTest has to improve on Firefox and Chrome as their versions change."
"OATS has some promising features that frankly we wish we could utilize, but so far we haven’t had much luck doing so."
"I would like to see better dashboards."
"WebForms works fine, but scripting in the EBS forms option isn't very consistent and stable."
"To provide test automation support for other products like SAP, Windows and Java Applications when it comes to Functional Test Automation testing."
"There are certain bugs which were present but was cleared in subsequent releases of application, but still there is room for improvement in the Functionality testing tool when automating form-based applications."
"It needs to be compatible with all browsers."
"Room for improvement would be for the reporting features. If they could improve the dashboards, that would be helpful."
"Transaction handling was very simple and I’d say quite primitive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
"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."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The price of the Oracle Application Testing Suite is not expensive. It is less expensive than other solutions."
"Customers need to negotiate properly to get the tool at a lower price."
"ORACLE is giving at a very competitive rates to all its customers, and its a simple licensing process."
"The complete package, including load testing and performance analysis, has a licensing fee."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
11%
Healthcare Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise13
 

Also Known As

Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
OATS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
Comic Relief UK, The Forestry Commission, TAFE SA, Silentnight Group, Victorian Department of Primary Industries
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Silk Test vs. Oracle Application Testing Suite and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.