We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and Testim 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 solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"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."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"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."
"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 stable."
"It is a highly stable solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"The product is easy to use."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"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 solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"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."
"When Ranorex is upgraded, the compatibility with other projects, in version control, in-house or on-premise, fails on occasion. However, overall, the stability is good."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"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 does not support dual or regression testing."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while Testim is ranked 17th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while Testim is rated 9.2. 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 Testim writes "A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and IBM DevOps Test UI, whereas Testim is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Functionize, Testsigma and LambdaTest. See our Ranorex Studio vs. Testim 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.
