We performed a comparison between Panaya Test Dynamix and Ranorex Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is easy for business users to use who are not familiar with testing tools."
"Test migration from HPE are done automatically. We can extract our tests from HPE, and they convert it into the Panaya format."
"The initial setup was not complex and the product itself is very easy to configure and use."
"The test repository to follow the test progress is most valuable because we can easily create and manage a huge number of test scripts. We can copy and paste, replicate, and drag and drop many tests scripts. We can create test scripts en masse. When you have a high volume of tests, the tool is quite useful. It works well when you want to manage a lot of tests, such as you have 1,000 or more test scripts."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy the scenarios and as we do a rollout we can efficiently complete test three and put it somewhere else under a new subsidiary."
"Provides better monitoring for testing campaigns and business process testing."
"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 most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"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 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."
"Object identification is good."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"Support is reactive and in English only."
"The setup of Panaya Recorder is a bit complex. Panaya is a SaaS application, but you need to install some components on your computer. You need to set up your computer to allow Panaya Recorder to work. There are five or six things to do each time you install Panaya for any user. If you miss something, Panaya Recorder doesn't work. So, it is complex to install."
"They provide options for custom fields or tabs, but customization of workflows would be great."
"It would be nice to be able to test offline. What I mean by that is today most of the time things are in the cloud, but sometimes when we are in factories and we do not have network access and we should be able to download a test script into our PCs and do the test offline. Once that is complete we can re-upload it when we have a network connection."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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 object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"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."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"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."
"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."
Panaya Test Dynamix is ranked 23rd in Functional Testing Tools with 4 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. Panaya Test Dynamix is rated 8.6, while Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Panaya Test Dynamix writes "More than reliable, with satisfied results for our needs, and excellent testing options". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". Panaya Test Dynamix is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Tricentis qTest, Worksoft Certify, OpenText ALM / Quality Center and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One. See our Panaya Test Dynamix vs. Ranorex Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.