Compare IBM Rational Service Tester vs. Ranorex Studio

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use IBM Rational Service Tester? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, Micro Focus and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: July 2020.
431,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
The licensing fees depend on the number of users.There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage.We paid €3,000 (approximately $3,300 USD) for this solution. When you add the runtime licenses it will be €3,500 (approximately $3,900 USD).

More Ranorex Studio Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
431,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
40th
Views
83
Comparisons
50
Reviews
0
Average Words per Review
0
Avg. Rating
N/A
12th
Views
11,712
Comparisons
8,749
Reviews
4
Average Words per Review
547
Avg. Rating
8.0
Popular Comparisons
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Also Known As
Rational Service Tester
Learn
IBM
Ranorex
Overview
IBM Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality is a functional and regression testing tool that enables code-free testing of non-GUI services. Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality helps software delivery teams ensure the functionality, interoperability and performance of service-oriented architecture (SOA) software and web services. Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality helps software teams perform and deliver quality assurance.

Ranorex is a leading software development company that offers innovative test automation software. Ranorex makes testing easy, saves time in the testing process and empowers clients to ensure the highest quality of their products. Its flexible tools and quick ROI make it the ideal choice for companies of virtually any size – and this is why thousands of clients in over 60 countries trust in its excellence.

Offer
Learn more about IBM Rational Service Tester
Learn more about Ranorex Studio
Sample Customers
IMM, ADP, Bangkok Hospital, Nice Céte d'Azur, Durham Police Department, Whogohost Ltd., Skypicker, Infinity Computers and Communications Company, Getin Noble Bank S.A., KPJ Healthcare Berhad Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Top Industries
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Computer Software Company25%
Financial Services Firm19%
Manufacturing Company19%
Comms Service Provider6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company39%
Comms Service Provider15%
Manufacturing Company5%
Retailer5%
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, Worksoft, Micro Focus and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: July 2020.
431,275 professionals have used our research since 2012.
IBM Rational Service Tester is ranked 40th in Functional Testing Tools while Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 4 reviews. IBM Rational Service Tester is rated 0, while Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0. On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Offers a strong suite of tools for application testing of mobile, desktop, and API apps". IBM Rational Service Tester is most compared with SoapUI Pro, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus UFT One and Selenium HQ.

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.