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 support beyond C#, Java, and JavaScript to include Python would be beneficial. An AI feature that automatically detects automation object properties and suggests actions would be a great addition.

So, in future releases, AI solutions for automated property identification would be helpful.

View full review »

We don't use Ranorex very heavily, so I can't really say. As I said, I've got one legacy developer who uses it to create automation scripts, and they use Ranorex for some basic local hosting. We're not using their cloud system or anything like that. So, it's a pretty small install base.

View full review »

One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian.

While this is not a problem for me, it is a problem for my team. There is no documentation in Italian. As we are based in Italy, it would be helpful to have training in Italian in some form.

View full review »

I have proposed few suggestions to them in the product improvement area. Including, highlighting the exact object/UI where the error occurs, instead of the entire screen capture. A few additional specific technology support that I requested in mobile at the time, and they have probably implemented this in their latest releases.

View full review »

The solution does not support dual or regression testing where you run two test suites at the same time. Other products such as Katalon include the dual testing option. 

The language is entirely based on C# and VB.NET which limits users who have a background in Java. 

It takes a bit of time to get used to the solution. 

View full review »

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.

View full review »

The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler.

The way objects are identified and how easily they can be identified, are areas that have room for improvement.

View full review »

Presently, the solution only supports Windows. It would be good if it also supports Ubuntu, as we have tools running on both systems.

View full review »

I just have my typical issues with any kind of automation tool where small changes require a lot of maintenance for me to be able to rerun the tests with some consistency. That really happens with any product that I've used so far, however. 

The other part of the tool that could use some improvement is I have an issue with the way it communicates with what they call runtime versions on remote stations. It's usually any minor firewall change or anything changed in our security system that seems to throw me off for a few days where I have to troubleshoot it and figure out why it's not working.

I'd like to be able to remotely record. It's not really an option unless I buy the main product. If I buy two licenses for it, I'd have that functionality. I'd like the main development side of it to be able to remotely record some of my scripts on remote machines.

I'd like to know their testing strategies and to know what they can automate and what they can't. It can become pretty frustrating if you're trying to automate something that changes on a monthly or weekly basis. 

View full review »

I would like to be able to customize the data grids. They are currently written in Visual Basic and we are unable to get down to the cell level without hard-code.

View full review »

The current version of Ranorex Studio IDE is based on an old version of SharpDevelop IDE (3.2), but this is going to change soon (planned update to SharpDevelop 4.x). So aside some minor feature requests I made in the past (many of them have already been implemented), I don’t have any urgent requests. The good thing about Ranorex is that it’s fully .Net compatible, so a lot of things could be self-implemented via custom C#/ VB.NET code.

View full review »

We are mainly working for manufacturing OEMs but the integration is not available. It would be a benefit if they built one integration tool for all the Teamcenter home servers and software as the main PLM data source. It is a simple process at this time, the integration could be made easier.

View full review »

• Built in web services testing functionality is required
• Built-in file comparison would be very handy
• Support for Mac and Linux would be handy, it supports only Windows

View full review »

The object detection functionality needs to be improved.  We have found that when you are selecting objects by moving the mouse, and then the position of these objects change in the newer versions of the application, the test tool fails to correctly identify them.

View full review »

The only real complaints I would have would be a bit of quirkiness in the UI at times, but no application is perfect.

View full review »

It needs a better connection to TFS.

View full review »

I would like to see Ranorex come up with a load balancing tool for test execution. For example, if I set up 10 VMs as UI clients I would love to be able to provide this group to the test suite so it would send test executions to the next available client. The result would be that I finish testing as soon as possible. 

Also, I would like to see the popup watchers be launched conditionally, and not each as a thread running in the background. For example, if there is a hang in the execution you launch a watcher and check for condition A. If not condition A then launch second watcher and look for condition B.

View full review »

I would like it to be more intuitive to use, especially in test management. I'd also like the ability to maintain and access tests in a more intuitive/structured way .

View full review »

They need to have modularity (running concurrently different parts of the tests on different environments and reporting back to centralized run centre). Currently we are implementing this functionality via code, but feature should give a lot of advantages.

View full review »

While the product does well with its primary job of testing, when we are using Ranorex it would be nice if it would report directly in HTML. We have to use another tool for that and that means that the distribution becomes a little bit more complicated than should be necessary. It is a bigger factor especially when testing is more complicated.

So having either better integration with a secondary tool or having those functionalities added to the platform would be a nice addition and simplify our process. There is a basic reporting module and we are using JIRA in addition in order to change the report formatting. So we need to have an interface from Ranorex and JIRA. It is there, but limited. If Ranorex did the reporting directly, we could easily make the result more compliant with what our management team would expect with no additional steps.

View full review »

Better IntelliSense support while handling Ranorex Libraries and .net libraries.

View full review »

It would be nice to have a way to indicate the coverage of the tests of the application. Currently there’s nothing available for this, and it’s difficult for Ranorex to have a good implementation of this feature. We need to say that Ranorex gives a lot of support and listens to their customers when there are requests for features.

View full review »

They have some problems with some pages rendering the angular solutions. 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.

It has a lot of features that are enabled by default, which can help you identify the elements, but if the page has too many queries, it will crash. It might be better if these features were not enabled by default. You should be able to choose the ones you need. It seems the solution was not optimized by the developer.

View full review »

Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)

Tests will fail if browser minimised, Parallel Execution Not possible (We could do are some extend if we use DOM method), From my experience, Ranorex Spy is slow when spying on Silverlight controls (ex:- Consider if 500 UI Elements are in an hierarchy & you are trying to spy 470th element)

View full review »

More possibilities on mobile devices, as we have already encountered some problems with iFrames integrated in a web page.

View full review »

I would definitely say that the existing documentation of their API has a lot of room for improvement. Sometimes, it is hard to decide which of the existing functions to use since the explanation of the existing functions is extremely short. So it is left for the user of the solution to try out different possibilities to make sure that the chosen function will fulfill the needs.

View full review »

There is too much focus on the drag-and-drop features of Ranorex, and not enough focus on the coding modules which we use extensively. As a programmer, would like to be able to come up with a code only interface so that features such as the Test Suite don't have to be used if they don't want to be.

View full review »

They need to improve their support of different web browsers along with Flash support. Also very important (at least to our team), Ranorex should provide Python support. Currently they only support C# and VB

View full review »

Less changes to the code when modifying a repository. Any minor change to a repository can result in a version control system nightmare, making it more difficult when working in teams. View full review »

Ranorex has truly been a “little monster” able to access even the most complex custom WPF controls. It is a pity Ranorex is not engaging model-based testing technologies.

View full review »

Their logs are not compatible with the continuous integration we use internally. We have to parse the log file to extract the details. And we can view those logs/test results only in the Ranorex add on enabled browser which is IE, we tried in Firefox we keep getting this version of Firefox version is not supported. Ranorex should at-least say which version of Firefox it will support.

View full review »

They should have support for other OS’s, aside from only supporting Windows. It would also be great if they supported JavaScript as a usable language to write code modules in.

View full review »

The compatibility with different browsers needs to be improved.

View full review »

• Snapshots for WPF applications taking too long than expected.

View full review »

Running the tool in a distributed environment was a challenge since Ranorex requires an active user session.

View full review »

Object recognition of Outlook add-ins instead of raw text recognition could be better. Ranorex should also provide features for Windows Mobile automation.

View full review »

I encountered a problem during div element recognition. This point could be enhanced.

View full review »

Need support for other operating systems like Mac and Linux, and not just Windows.

View full review »

There were some issues when the UI widget being tested was not developed in .NET, and the test resulted in some unknown actions when played back.

View full review »

It needs a more robust capture & replay, and the GUI object recognition needs improvement too. Mobile device testing should not only bbe limited to phones and tablets, I would like to see if it can support user devices such as printers like Ricoh, Xerox, and Konica and their emulators.

View full review »

Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work. 

Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better).

View full review »

SQL Connector has a lot of improvements to make, and they need to implement user-defined queries. 

Also, the invoke function doesn't work as it should to select the items down in the scroll tab.

View full review »