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

Ranorex Studio vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

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

Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
16th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.4%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 19.2%, up from 17.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features
The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"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 intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"The solution is script-less, so you don't need IT knowledge to use the solution in an operational way. This is the most valuable feature. It's also only one of two or three tools that can do good automation on SAP, and in my opinion, it's the best of those."
"For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"One notable feature is its ability to handle negative XPath healing processes. If one XPath fails, Tosca can utilize backup XPaths to ensure test cases do not fail due to locator issues, thereby focusing on identifying application-side issues, which is the ultimate goal."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."
"Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people."
"Tosca BI is important to make sure that our data integrity is in check and validated; to make sure our data is good. Our data is the number-one important driver for our company, so if that's not good, we have some big problems."
 

Cons

"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."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"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."
"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 object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies."
"The product needs to improve its pricing. It also needs to improve the infrastructure and DEX agent setup."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
"I would say the reporting part of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"It would be of great help if they can fix the loading or performance issues. Sometimes, when I create the test case folder and test cases, it feels like it has loading or performance issues. When passing the objects, we can't sometimes find the exact element. We need to find out that exact location and just give the path for that, and then it works. In the pipeline, when creating Jenkins, we create the list execution for passing the execution list to the commander. I feel it is a bit late, by a fraction of seconds. I first thought it could be my mistake or a setting issue, but I worked on that, and it's not a mistake or a setting issue."
"The product needs to improve object identification. The identify with properties and anchor methods work perfectly, while the by-index and image methods may face challenges."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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)."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"We hired a consultant to figure out all the tools in our company and how they fit in our company before we purchased the solution."
"Tricentis Tosca is an expensive solution and there is an annual license required. The whole licensing process is confusing and it could be made easier."
"It is expensive."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the pricing a ten. The licensing model is based on a yearly basis."
"I rate the price of Tricentis Tosca a two out of five."
"A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros."
"Expensive, but for long-term projects, it is paying back."
"In terms of the licensing costs for Tricentis Tosca, we are spending more or less $70,000 per year. We have a very complex mechanism because there are some business users and some BI users, so the licensing structure is not simple, but support is included."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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...
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...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?
For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about Ranorex Studio vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.