We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer and Ranorex Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."
"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is the capture and replay tool. You don't need to do script testing. When you launch any application from Ranorex Studio it automatically captures these test case steps. The next time you can replay the tool the flow automatically happens again. For example, when you do the logging and all the activity will be captured by the tool, and re-execute the same step by using automatization."
"Object identification is good."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"I'm from a UFT background, so Ranorex Studio has a similar feel in terms of how it handles objects. It just felt familiar even though I'd never seen it before. However, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of UFT, but it's a pretty good start, and it's cost-effective."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"The pricing could be improved."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."
"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."
"I would like to be able to customize the data grids. They are currently written in Visual Basic and we are unable to get down to the cell level without hard-code."
"There were a lot of issues we faced. One notable improvement would be better API integration within the tool itself, as we still rely on external tools like Postman."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"When we have updated the solution in the past there have been issues with the libraries. They need to make it clear that the libraries need to be upgraded too."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"I'd like to know their testing strategies and to know what they can automate and what they can't. It can become pretty frustrating if you're trying to automate something that changes on a monthly or weekly basis."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, Original Software TestDrive and Selenium HQ, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression 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.
