We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Ranorex Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Mobile App Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"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 solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"Object identification is good."
"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 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."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"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."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"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."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Mobile App Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 4th in Mobile App Testing Tools with 46 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". 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". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Worksoft Certify, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and Selenium HQ. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Ranorex Studio report.
See our list of best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Mobile App 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.
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 .