OpenText UFT Developer vs Ranorex Studio comparison

OpenText and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #11 with an average rating of 7.8, while Ranorex is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.5. OpenText holds a 2.8% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.9% 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

1,926 Views
1,291 Comparison Views

76% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

2,134 Views
1,588 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: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 842,388 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

11th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

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

14th

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 March 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.8%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.9%, up from 3.2% 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

"It is a product that can meet regulations of the banking industry."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."

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

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

"It's a complete pursuit and it's a logical pursuit working with HPE."

"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT Developer is the flexibility to work with many different types of software."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

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

"Object identification is good."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."

"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

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

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

"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."

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

"The tool could be a little easier."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."

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

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

More Ranorex Studio cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

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

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

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

"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."

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

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

More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice

"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."

"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)."

"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."

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

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

842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Healthcare Company

Computer Software Company

19%

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 60% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 20% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 23% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 16% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 16% of the time

Qt Squish vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

March 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

Overview

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

OpenText

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.

Ranorex

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

March 2025

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: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

842,388 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.