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 Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"It's simple to set up."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"It offers a wide range of testing."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is stable."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"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."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"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."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional 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 Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Mobile App 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.
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 .