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 8.2, while Ranorex is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.5. OpenText holds a 10.0% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.9% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT One

Read 95 OpenText UFT One reviews

7,005 Views
4,400 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One vs. Ranorex Studio

January 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 839,319 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 (5th)

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

14th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

3rd

Ranking in Regression Testing Tools

7th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.0%, up from 9.5% 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

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

"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."

"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."

"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."

"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."

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

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

"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."

More OpenText UFT One pros

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

"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."

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

"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."

"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."

"The solution is stable."

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

"Perhaps more coverage as far as different languages go. I'm talking more about object identification."

"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."

"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."

"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."

"The tool needs to improve its performance since it can become heavy."

"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."

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

"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."

More OpenText UFT One cons

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

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

"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

"The pricing of the product is an issue."

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

"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."

"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."

"The tool's price is high."

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."

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

More OpenText UFT One pricing and cost advice

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

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

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

"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)."

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

839,319 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

19%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Energy/Utilities 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

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 32% of the time

OpenText UFT Developer vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 11% of the time

Katalon Studio vs OpenText UFT One

Compared 10% of the time

UiPath Test Suite 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

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

Eggplant Test vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 6% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT One

February 2025

Download OpenText UFT One product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

February 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

January 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: January 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

839,319 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.