We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"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 solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"Object identification is good."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"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."
"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 this solution is regression testing tools."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The most valuable features of the SmartBear TestComplete are self-healing, they reduce the maintenance required. The different languages SmartBear TestComplete supports are good because some of our libraries are written in Python, JavaScript, and C#. It's very easy to put them all under one project and use them. The are other features that SmartBear TestComplete has but the competition widely has them as well."
"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."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"The integration tools could be better."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 9th in Test Automation Tools with 46 reviews while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 71 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, froglogic Squish, OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, froglogic Squish and Eggplant Test. See our Ranorex Studio vs. SmartBear TestComplete report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
All of these solutions are based on scripts and face the associated limitations. Test data management, parameterization, dynamic TBOMs, BPCA, SolMan integration and script maintenance all pose potential issues. I'd recommend looking at Tricentis Tosca or Worksoft, both of which provide scriptless automation for SAP GUI. Tosca also supports Fiori and NWBC natively as well as over 30 different UI and API technologies.
[FULL DISCLOSURE: I work for Tricentis, so obviously biased, but we serve many SAP clients]
Have used HPE UFT and SAP TAO for testing SAP applications. SAP TAO is more oriented towards the use of SAP by the Technical Users, while you can structure your tests in HPE UFT to be more business oriented and UX-driven. The limitations for these tools are as have been iterated above the use of the Scripting Language and more times the use of 'Record and Play' methods to automate the tests.
As mentioned above integration with HP ALM (and BPT) makes the whole process easier to comprehend and work on from a Business viewpoint, and when your end users are basically Business users with limited Technical use. That said, you can try the latest SAP testing with the TOSCA tool also, which now provides the majority of the SAP 'modules' (aka objects) out of the box. This is a scriptless tool and with v9.x has the ability to do record and play and actual 'Exploratory' testing wherein the user can just switch it ON and record and later these steps are translated back into Test Case steps (much like TAO).
TestComplete is also good, but you need C# knowledge for most of the scripting work, otherwise it is a cheaper option to any of the other tools available. Again, you need to be mindful that someone needs to create the initial framework and then users can work on it. This tool is more helpful when doing some Unit Tests.
I am not sure of Ranorex, as have not used it.
It's been a while since I have used SmartBear, but I do know with HP & Ranorex that you will need to have more a development background for both your test logic and object recognition. If your testers are more developers, then you'll be ok. Will be happy to share other options to look at.
Please checkout the following links for HP solutions:
resultspositive.com
www8.hp.com
www.techvalidate.com
Thanks,
-PL
Hi,
I tested SAP with HPE UFT including BPT with a high level of success. The major difference between TAO and UFT is that UFT approaches testing from a user/business perspective while TAO is more oriented towards technical part by accessing individually each transaction. We were in System and later Acceptance Test so UFT was the tool of choice. HPE UFT detected objects ok, we could access all transactions and compose whatever scenarios crossed our minds. In order to do that we integrated with HP ALM who offered BPT which made the work a lot easier. We knew the tool so no training was necessary but the cost of licenses was quiet high.
Hope it helps
Victor
UFT will support or Tricentis TOSCA .