OpenText UFT One vs Ranorex Studio comparison

OpenText and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1, while Ranorex is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.5. OpenText holds a 10.1% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.6% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT One

Read 96 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,140 Views
4,477 Comparison Views

87% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

2,112 Views
1,566 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT One

Ranorex Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText UFT One and Ranorex Studio are both strong contenders in the automation testing market. While OpenText UFT One stands out for its comprehensive technology support, Ranorex Studio is favored for ease of use, particularly for desktop application testing.

Features: OpenText UFT One offers broad compatibility with various tools and technologies, supporting GUI testing, API testing, and enabling integration across multiple environments. It also includes advanced integration capabilities and strong object recognition features. Ranorex Studio is known for its user-friendly interface and supports testing across desktop, web, and mobile platforms. It provides robust cross-browser testing capabilities and a versatile object recognition system.

Room for Improvement: Users of UFT One have suggested the need for faster performance and enhanced browser compatibility. There's also room for refining its object recognition capabilities on newer platforms. Ranorex Studio users have mentioned the need for improvements in object recognition and additional operating system support such as macOS and Linux.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both OpenText UFT One and Ranorex Studio primarily offer on-premises deployment but are flexible with cloud options. UFT One users report varied experiences with technical support, whereas Ranorex Studio users typically find its support services satisfactory.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT One is often perceived as expensive, but its wide range of applicability often justifies the cost by enhancing productivity and minimizing manual testing times. Ranorex Studio, while also not inexpensive, provides considerable value with a flexible licensing model and an effective ROI through its powerful automation features.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT One vs. Ranorex Studio Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One vs. Ranorex Studio

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,564 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 One

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

2nd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

3rd

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

2nd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

API Testing Tools (6th)

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

14th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

4th

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

7th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.1%, up from 9.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.6%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Q&A Highlights

it_user500790

Works

Aug 24, 2016

SAP GUI Testing Tool

Thanks all, it's encouraging to see so much support and responses

See all answers

Featured Reviews

Don Ingerson

QA Automation Engineer at Global Fortune 500 Company

With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results

With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.

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

"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."

"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."

"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."

"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."

"Automation of tests is done very fast with UFT One."

"It offers a wide range of testing."

"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."

"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."

More OpenText UFT One pros

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

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

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

"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."

"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."

"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 most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."

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

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."

"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."

"Customer service is a big drawback. From my personal experience, after creating a ticket, it takes three to five days for them to acknowledge it and then send it to somebody."

"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."

"The user interface could be improved"

"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."

"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."

"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."

More OpenText UFT One cons

"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."

"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."

More Ranorex Studio cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."

"The price is one aspect that could be improved."

"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."

"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."

"The tool's price is high."

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

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

"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."

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

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

"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)."

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

845,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Answers from the Community

it_user500790

Works

Aug 24, 2016

SAP GUI Testing Tool

Thanks all, it's encouraging to see so much support and responses

2 out of 16 answers

it_user83412

Vice President at Tricentis

Aug 23, 2016

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]

Read full answer

it_user457878

Works at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees

Aug 23, 2016

UFT will support or Tricentis TOSCA .

Read full answer

See all 16 answers

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

18%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Government

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?

We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?

My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?

UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...

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

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 9% of the time

OpenText Silk Test vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText UFT One Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 24% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

Qt Squish vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

Eggplant Test vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 6% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

March 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

March 2025

Download Ranorex Studio product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro

No data available

Overview

Our AI-powered functional testing tool accelerates test automation. It works across desktop, web, mobile, mainframe, composite, and packaged enterprise-grade applications.

Read white paper

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

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One vs. Ranorex Studio

March 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT One vs. Ranorex Studio

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.