ACCELQ Automate vs Ranorex Studio comparison

"The platform contributes to faster test release cycles."

"Object identification is good."

"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."

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

"The solution is stable."

"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."

"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."

"The platform's reporting aspects can be broader and include more granular details."

"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."

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

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

"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."

"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."

"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."

"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 rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten. It can be optimized."

"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)."

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

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

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

"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."

"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."