We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and SmartBear TestLeft based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"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."
"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 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 fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is stable."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"The most valuable features are test executor and development."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"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."
"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."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"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."
"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 object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"TestLeft captures a lot of space in terms of memory, which is one issue that can be improved."
Earn 20 points
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while SmartBear TestLeft is ranked 33rd in Functional Testing Tools. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while SmartBear TestLeft is rated 7.0. 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 TestLeft writes "Simple to set up and the test execute feature is helpful, but the cost could be reduced". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One, whereas SmartBear TestLeft is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca.
See our list of best Functional 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.
