• Home
  • Ranorex Studio vs. TestingWhiz

Ranorex Studio vs TestingWhiz comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Ranorex Logo

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews
2,949 views|2,181 comparisons
95% willing to recommend
Cygnet Infotech Logo

TestingWhiz

125 views|101 comparisons
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Download the complete report
Buyer's Guide
Functional Testing Tools
April 2024
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and TestingWhiz based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2024).
Download the complete report
768,415 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Anonymous User
Provides good scalability but needs a user-friendly coding language
The solution has its advantages, as it supports virtual machines. Thus, we can integrate it with the DevOps processes and Jenkins server.
Use TestingWhiz?
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
  • "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)."
  • "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."
  • "Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
  • "Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
  • "This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."

    • More Ranorex Studio Pricing and Cost Advice →

    Information Not Available
    report
    See Which Vendors Are Best For You
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    See Recommendations
    768,415 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    What do you like most about Ranorex Studio?
    Top Answer: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.
    Read all 12 answers   →
    What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ranorex Studio?
    Top Answer:I'd rate it around five out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, not too cheap but not overly pricey.
    Read all 8 answers   →
    What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?
    Top Answer: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. Additionally, expanding language… more »
    Read all 12 answers   →
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    12th
    out of 47 in Functional Testing Tools
    Views
    2,949
    Comparisons
    2,181
    Reviews
    5
    Average Words per Review
    509
    Rating
    8.0
    38th
    out of 47 in Functional Testing Tools
    Views
    125
    Comparisons
    101
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Learn More
    Ranorex
    Cygnet Infotech
    Overview

    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.

    TestingWhiz is a Codeless Automation Testing Tool for Software, Web, Mobile, Database, Cloud, Web Services and API testing. It is pillared on a strong architecture combined with intuitive Automation Engine and short learning curve that promises to take your test automation to the next level.

    Sample Customers
    Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
    Verizon, IBM, Symantec, VMware, Hyundai, Choice Hotels, Intel, Autodesk, Frost
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company26%
    Manufacturing Company17%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Government9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company24%
    Manufacturing Company10%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    Government7%
    No Data Available
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business28%
    Midsize Enterprise26%
    Large Enterprise46%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business25%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise60%
    No Data Available
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    April 2024
    Download Free Report
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2024.
    DOWNLOAD NOW
    768,415 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while TestingWhiz is ranked 38th in Functional Testing Tools. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while TestingWhiz is rated 0.0. 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, Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One, whereas TestingWhiz is most compared with .

    See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.