I haven't use these tools in c# and .Net projects. You can add SilkTest in your evaluation. Recent Silktest version, supporting both IE and Netscape in a good manner.
I don't think so, manual scripting is possible in Quick test.
SilkTest is about to support .net applications (downloading the beta today).
For my money, despite some problems, SilkTest is the best language and the most expandable because of its language. Although I have to kludge some workarounds some times, it's at least a powerful enough language to allow to me to do those.
A concerned Borland customer, a fly in the ointment, a wrench in the works.
Ok in my humble opinion it is down to two choices:
I have worked with both. I prefer Silk over winrunner leaps and bounds. Winrunner (imho) is not as robust, (you will actually have to find more workarounds) than with Silk. (esp with the Browser)
Also WinRunner is a kludgy patchwork of functions to Gui elements that YOU the test writer must correlate. In other words you have to remember what functions operate on what gui elements because WinRunner is not object oriented.
With silk knowing what the Gui Object IS, you automatically have a filter to the methods that operate on it .. (again in my humble opinion)
Having said all that it's really a matter of style and what you are most comfortable with. Silk and WinRunner I have found are two sides of the only coin, in the market share of test tools.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!
Sr. QA Engineer