OpenText UFT Developer vs Ranorex Studio comparison

OpenText and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #13 with an average rating of 7.8, while Ranorex is ranked #15 with an average rating of 7.7. OpenText holds a 2.9% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.8% mindshare. Additionally, 76% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 37 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

2,133 Views
1,408 Comparison Views

76% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

2,240 Views
1,690 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Ranorex Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText UFT Developer and Ranorex Studio compete in the software testing tools market, focusing on automation across various environments. OpenText UFT Developer has an edge with its integration abilities, particularly beneficial in complex development cycles.

Features: OpenText UFT Developer is known for its versatility and seamless integration with tools like ALM and Jenkins. It supports various programming languages, allowing developers to use Java and C#, making it highly adaptable to different testing environments. Its developer-friendly interface facilitates smooth integration into the development lifecycle. Ranorex Studio is appreciated for its ease of use and strong automation capabilities across desktop, web, and mobile applications. It supports C# and VB.NET, known for its strong object recognition and detailed reporting features, enhancing testing efficiency.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT Developer needs enhanced cross-browser testing capabilities and better support for open-source frameworks. Performance improvements and integration with newer testing frameworks are also required. Ranorex Studio could improve its browser compatibility and support for non-Windows environments. It should also focus on enhancing object recognition in complex UIs and expanding overall language support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both OpenText UFT Developer and Ranorex Studio offer on-premises deployment options, with cloud alternatives available. Technical support for OpenText UFT Developer varies, with some users citing slow response times. Ranorex Studio's technical support is generally well-regarded, though some users have specific unmet needs in their service experience.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT Developer is viewed as an expensive solution suitable for larger organizations with bigger budgets, given its costly per-user license. However, its capabilities can justify the investment across testing teams. Ranorex Studio also has a high price point but is considered appropriate for its offered features, with flexible licensing options like floating licenses. Both tools offer significant returns on investment through increased automation efficiency when widely adopted within an organization.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio Report (Updated: December 2024).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio

December 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 831,265 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

13th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

10th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

15th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd), Regression Testing Tools (7th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.8%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Mohamed Bosri

Process Architect Referent at Forvia

Efficient recording feature shines amid expected desktop and website enhancements

Our use case involves functionality for a system ERP. We work with Deviation, which is stable and receives positive feedback from users OpenText UFT Developer allows junior testers to learn through open source and online resources like YouTube. They can find solutions to issues even if the…

Read full review

Aws V

IT Team Leader -Automation Manager at Citco

Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"One of the important features, which speeds up the automation testing development with LeanFT, is its object repository functions. Object identification are the most time-consuming aspect of building automation tests. LeanFT gives that out of the box. It helps you identify the objects and after that, once you got the object in place, then it's just about building the test scripts. So it reduces your development time significantly."

"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."

"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership."

"The solution is very scalable."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is the number of plugins for object recognition. The predefined libraries allow us to automate tasks."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

"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."

"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."

"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."

"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."

"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."

"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."

"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."

"The solution is stable."

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

"UFT is like a flagship of testing tools, but it's too expensive and people are not using it so much. They should work on their pricing to make themselves more competitive."

"It is unstable, expensive, inflexible, and has poor support."

"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

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

"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."

"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."

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

"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."

"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."

"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."

More Ranorex Studio cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice

"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."

"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."

"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."

"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)."

"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."

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

831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

21%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

It's a high-priced solution compared to Selenium. Selenium is free, though there is a paid version now too. Selenium has improved a lot, and it's still okay to use. It's a functional testing tool, ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The solution could improve by working better with desktop applications and websites. It is also suggested that the design and some functionality could be better.

See all answers

What do you like most about Ranorex Studio?

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ranorex Studio?

I'd rate it around five out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, not too cheap but not overly pricey.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 59% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 24% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

UiPath Test Suite vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 25% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 16% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 16% of the time

Qt Squish vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 10% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

January 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

January 2025

Download Ranorex Studio product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

No data available

Learn More

OpenText

Ranorex

Overview

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

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.

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio

December 2024

Free Report: OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation 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.