We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and Tricentis Tosca 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."The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"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."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"Tricentis Tosca is a really cool tool that you don't have to be technical to use it. Additionally, the solution is easy to use. The modules, libraries, and reusable are in an efficient way to update all the tests. I find it spot on with that. We also started using the design which we switched from Excel. The design was superior to Excel."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"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."
"For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"The reporting is really nice."
"The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"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."
"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."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"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."
"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."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"I would like a better user interface."
"Tosca's reporting features could be better. Tricentis had a reporting tool called Analytics, but it didn't function properly after they reworked it. After that, they tried a new approach with key-tracing, and that didn't work."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"Tricentis Tosca currently does not support any mobile testing and can be improved."
"You need to spend much more time learning the tool and how to use it, compared to others."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"Security, UI, and basic performance improvements could be done to the product to enhance its use."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish, OpenText UFT One and Selenium HQ, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Selenium HQ. See our Ranorex Studio vs. Tricentis Tosca 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.