Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Perforce QA Wizard Pro vs Ranorex Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Perforce QA Wizard Pro
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
37th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
23rd
Average Rating
5.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
16th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Perforce QA Wizard Pro is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.8%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

AK
Shared change lists are helpful, but poor scalability leads to problems with instability
The biggest problems with this solution have to do with scale. If the load is high then your request is put on hold for a second, and then you have to handle it. If you make a lot of requests then it is your problem. It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time. Any additional request would be put on hold and made to wait for a few seconds. Once the network and infrastructure are loaded to handle the next request, it would proceed.
Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

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 feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"Object identification is good."
"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 stable."
"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 solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
 

Cons

"It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"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."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"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)."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"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."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
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.
What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?
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 languag...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ubisoft, Expedia, Honda, Samsung,Citrix
Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, BrowserStack and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.