We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and Tricentis Tosca 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."Object identification is good."
"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."
"The solution is stable."
"Data security was prime for us. Being able to download and run tests on our local machines was a big plus. The flexibility Ranorex offers in terms of customization is outstanding."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"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."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"Very user-friendly and the low code automation is really helpful."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"The Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"The most important feature is its ability to support the technical automation of specific clients that we cannot use with other tools."
"Object Identification Wizard."
"The low code is the best feature."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."
"We are mainly working for manufacturing OEMs but the integration is not available. It would be a benefit if they built one integration tool for all the Teamcenter home servers and software as the main PLM data source. It is a simple process at this time, the integration could be made easier."
"If there are many queries on the web page, Ranorex will not render the page correctly. I had about 1,000 queries on the page, and the solution was not able to handle it."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"I think the downside would be licensing costs which are very high."
"Parallel execution is not yet implemented for Tosca. This means you can't execute the same test case on multiple machines remotely."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"What needs to be improved in Tricentis Tosca is its centralized repository mechanism because it's not as flexible. The repository in the solution where you store the data and the script for test automation is quite an old-fashioned mechanism that could be improved."
"Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation."
"Running the regression – if multiple lists are executed at once or if a list contains 200+ tests, it’s a pain to stop the execution."
"Security, UI, and basic performance improvements could be done to the product to enhance its use."
"Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish, OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Appium. See our Ranorex Studio vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Mobile App Testing 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.