OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs Ranorex Studio comparison

OpenText and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.3, while Ranorex is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.5. OpenText holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.9% mindshare. Additionally, 82% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Read 17 OpenText UFT Digital Lab reviews

624 Views
370 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

2,154 Views
1,634 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Ranorex Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

OpenText UFT Digital Lab and Ranorex Studio compete in automated testing solutions. Ranorex Studio holds the upper hand for its ease of use and flexibility, while OpenText UFT Digital Lab is noted for its integration capabilities.

Features: OpenText UFT Digital Lab integrates with various applications and supports real-time testing environments, agile testing capabilities, and primary usage on real devices and emulators. Ranorex Studio offers powerful scripting features, supports a multitude of test automation scenarios, and excels in cross-browser testing and integration with Visual Studio and Jenkins.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT Digital Lab could improve by expanding its cloud-centric approach to offer more flexibility in deployment options and enhancing user interface simplicity. Ranorex Studio could benefit from strengthening its reporting capabilities, improving mobile application support, and providing more robust UI recognition features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText UFT Digital Lab provides a cloud-based deployment model with comprehensive customer service support, including documentation and forums. Ranorex Studio offers both on-premises and cloud deployment options with strong technical support and easy-to-access guides, facilitating straightforward deployment.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT Digital Lab's cost structure includes advanced integrations and scalability, which require a higher initial investment but promise long-term benefits. Ranorex Studio presents a cost-effective solution with a lower entry cost, emphasizing high ROI by leveraging adaptable features and efficient deployment. The distinction lies in OpenText UFT Digital Lab's focus on integration, while Ranorex Studio offers a more budget-friendly option with significant capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Ranorex Studio Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Ranorex Studio

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 838,713 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 Digital Lab

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

17th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

5th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

14th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Digital Lab is 0.9%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.9%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Robinson Caiado

Sales Leader at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Automates mobile solutions while boosting productivity and fostering innovation

It allows multiple devices to be used and gives flexibility in adding devices when a project is needed. Most of the time, I have several devices where it is predefined. We can use it, but sometimes, we must scale it in a particular situation. It's very flexible. It is very important because we can use a different approach to software testing, for example, to find a way to execute UFT software testing with only one execution. This reproduces all the platforms that we need.

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

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"The product is easy to use."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"The fact that it allows users to test on real mobile devices instead of emulators is something that projects have told us is beyond compare."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"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."

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

"Object identification is good."

"The solution is stable."

"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."

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

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

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"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."

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

"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."

"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

More Ranorex Studio cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

"The product could be more affordable."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

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

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

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

"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)."

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

"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

838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

20%

Non Profit

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

19%

Manufacturing Company

14%

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 Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Sometimes, it's challenging to have relations with OpenText support.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

We use it in financial services companies to automate mobile solutions and applications.

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

Perfecto vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 25% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 18% of the time

Sauce Labs vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 14% of the time

BrowserStack vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 12% of the time

Appium vs OpenText UFT Digital Lab

Compared 12% of the time

More OpenText UFT Digital Lab Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 25% 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 14% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 9% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab

February 2025

Download OpenText UFT Digital Lab product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

February 2025

Download Ranorex Studio product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

No data available

Overview

Our enterprise-level solution is a complete, centralized lab of real mobile devices and emulators. With remote access, developers and testers can develop, debug, test, monitor, and optimize mobile apps from anywhere.

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

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Ranorex Studio

February 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Ranorex Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT Digital Lab 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.