OpenText UFT Digital Lab vs Ranorex Studio comparison

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

"The product is easy to use."

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

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

"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 most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

"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."

"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."

"The solution is stable."

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

"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 solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."

"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."

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

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

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

"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."

"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."

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

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."

"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."

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

"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."

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

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

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

"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)."

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

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