We performed a comparison between IBM DevOps Test UI 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."It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"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 solution is stable."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"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."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"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."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Part of the challenge is that Ranorex's support is over in Europe, so we can't get responses on the same day. If we had support in the United States that was a bit more timely, that would be helpful."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
IBM DevOps Test UI is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. IBM DevOps Test UI is rated 7.2, while Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM DevOps Test UI writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". 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". IBM DevOps Test UI is most compared with Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Selenium HQ, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and Oracle Application Testing Suite. See our IBM DevOps Test UI vs. Ranorex Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.
