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."I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"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."
"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"Object identification is good."
"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."
"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."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"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."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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 .