TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    ACCELQ

    Score7.7 out of 10
    N/AACCELQ is an agile quality management platform that helps users achieve continuous delivery for web, mobile, manual testing, and APIs. It can be used to write and manage manual test cases for the functionality that may be too fluid for automation.N/A

    OpenText Silk Central

    Score7 out of 10
    N/AFormerly from Micro Focus and earliler from Borland, unified test management with OpenText™ Silk Central drives reuse and efficiency. It gives users the visibility to control application readiness.N/A
    Pricing
    ACCELQOpenText Silk Central
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    ACCELQOpenText Silk Central
    Free Trial
    YesNo
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details
    More Pricing Information
    Features
    ACCELQOpenText Silk Central
    Automation Testing
    Comparison of Automation Testing features of ACCELQ and OpenText Silk Central
    Feature
    ACCELQ
    8.9
    1 Ratings
    5% above category average
    OpenText Silk Central
    -
    Ratings
    Record and Automate9.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Multi-Browser Testing8.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Mobile Testing8.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Test Scheduling10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Test Management8.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    CI/CD Tool Integration8.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Integrated Version Control10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Parallel Testing10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Object Recognition10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Data-Driven Testing9.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Testing Collaboration7.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Real Device Testing10.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Testing Reports & Analytics9.01 Ratings00 Ratings
    Test Management
    Comparison of Test Management features of ACCELQ and OpenText Silk Central
    Feature
    ACCELQ
    -
    Ratings
    OpenText Silk Central
    8.0
    1 Ratings
    1% below category average
    Centralized test management00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
    Manage test hosts and schedules00 Ratings7.01 Ratings
    Map tests to user stories00 Ratings9.01 Ratings
    Test execution reporting00 Ratings6.01 Ratings
    Best Alternatives
    ACCELQOpenText Silk Central
    Small Businesses
    BrowserStack
    Score8.5 out of 10
    No answers on this topic
    Medium-sized Companies
    BlazeMeter
    Score8 out of 10
    No answers on this topic
    Enterprises
    Tricentis Tosca
    Score8.8 out of 10
    No answers on this topic
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    ACCELQOpenText Silk Central
    Likelihood to Recommend
    9.0
    (2 ratings)
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    Usability
    9.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    ACCELQOpenText Silk Central
    Likelihood to Recommend
    ACCELQ
    Low code test automation, Ready to pickup platform without having much prior knowledge on automation, AI agent interactions are nearly close to real life scenarios, best API automation scale it has got, QGPT logic builder has really changed the talk with DBs in AI way, Logic insights feature is really impressive to identify possible risk while just started developing web apps.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    We didn't just select Borland Silk Central randomly. In the selection process, we actually evaluated in total 26 available test management tools in the market. We sent surveys to all potential users in the department to collect their wish list of our next management tool, converted them to a criteria list, and used that list to evaluate all 26 tools. We reduced the possible candidate tools to five and organized a small committee to pick the final three. Top management then checked their price tags and selected Borland Silk Central. Based on this evaluation process, I would say Borland Silk Central is suitable to an organization which has no more than 60 testers; needs both manual tests and automated tests; needs on-line support; needs a low learning curve and has a limited budget. My personal view is that this tool reaches the balance points among ease-of-use, budget and support.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    ACCELQ
    • Scriptless and hence coding is easy.
    • Maintenance of the scripts are easy.
    • Learning curve is small.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    • Borland Silk Central is good for the users to associate test requirements, test cases, execution plans and test reports together. Each asset (test case, requirement, etc...) provides links for the users to jump to other assets in a click, and the users can jump back and forth between two assets.
    • Borland Silk Central is also good in test automation. Although Micro Focus does provide a client tool for test automation, the users don't really need it to automate the tests. In our case, we are using Python to automate the tests and use a batch file to launch tests, and in Borland Silk Central we just call that batch file from server side. The test result is automatically fed back to Silk server.
    • Micro Focus also publishes the schema of the database behind Borland Silk Central, so it is very easy to extend its function beyond its original design. Moreover, because its schema is published, we can easily retrieve and process its data for business intelligence purpose.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    ACCELQ
    • Visual regression features
    • Test generation from UI and UX platforms like Figma
    • Manual test tools can be more integrated with AutoPilot
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    • On the other hand, the plugins of Borland Silk Central with third-party tools are programmed poorly. In our case, the plugins for JIRA have a lot of limitations and were almost unusable in our test environment. (They did improve the plugins a little bit later, however.)
    • The tech support people are located in UK, so frequently it is difficult to get a hold of these guys due to different time zones. Also, most of them obviously don't have enough experience and sometimes drove us nuts in emergency situations.
    • The last thing I feel is that Micro Focus possibly doesn't provide enough manpower to maintain Borland Silk Central. There are tons of feature requests for Borland Silk Central pending there. Although they have frequent hot fixes every few months, they don't digest these requests quick enough.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Usability
    ACCELQ
    Features like low code, API automation, auto pilot and free account creations, case studies are better suited for my business into IOT space, some of the enterprise automation features are truly game changer in productivity for my team. Database migration was supported seamlessly while opted for ACCELQ solutions.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    No answers on this topic
    Alternatives Considered
    ACCELQ
    When we implemented ACCELQ, we conducted POCs with many similar solutions. Among the tools we pursued at that time, accelQ stood out against Tricentis Tosca and QMetry automation studio. However, subject 7 did better. However, they were still in the nascent stages of building the tool, and hence we did not pick it.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    We had evaluated, for example:
    • IBM Collaborate Suite - it is way too complicated and the learning curve is too high.
    • HP Quality Center - it is OK but a little bit expensive.
    • TestLink, Squash TM and other open source tools: The capabilities of open source tools just can't compare to commercial tools. Although we can modify the source code to improve the tool, we are just test engineers, not developers.
    • Zephyr: Our testers simply didn't like its UI - too weird.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    ACCELQ
    • Overall adoption of an automation tool went up.
    • Migration of existing selenium scripts to ACCELQ was relatively easy and less effort.
    • Lack of overall admin console and hence managing the agents across different execution is difficult.
    • Integration between accelQ and any test management tool can be difficult and buggy in most cases, even though it can be coded.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    OpenText
    • Borland Silk Central provides a centralized test platform for multiple test departments in the company, so now all of the departments know what each of them is doing. In turn, all departments can coordinate with each other to reduce the duplicated test items and increase the overall test efficiency.
    • Also, Borland Silk Central enables the users to publish the test procedure (steps) of each test case so all the users can know how each test case is performed. It is not like what we had before, the test procedures resided in difference place from Excel to Google drive or some other weird locations.
    • Also, because all departments are using Borland Silk Central, all testers of the departments have better communication regarding testing methods. In the past, the department used different test management tools and it was hard for the testers to understand each other's testing methods.
    • Finally, because all departments share BorlandSilk Central, they also share the same set of reports published to Atlassian Confluence, so now they use the same set of reports to evaluate the test progress.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots