OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs Ranorex Studio comparison

OpenText and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8, while Ranorex is ranked #14 with an average rating of 8.0. OpenText holds a 2.9% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.3% mindshare. Additionally, 78% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 39 OpenText Functional Testing for Developers reviews

1,897 Views
1,650 Comparison Views

78% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

3,071 Views
1,843 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranorex Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers and Ranorex Studio compete in the realm of software test automation. Currently, Ranorex Studio appears to have an edge due to its ease of use and flexibility, particularly beneficial for smaller teams or those with less technical expertise.

Features: OpenText Functional Testing supports complex algorithms, robust DevOps integration, and wide protocol support. Ranorex Studio offers user-friendliness, support for C# and VB.NET, and features such as Ranorex Spy and mobile testing, making it accessible for non-developers.

Room for Improvement: OpenText Functional Testing could improve its stability and integration functions, expand browser compatibility, and support more technologies like Oracle ERP. Ranorex Studio users seek better support for operating systems beyond Windows, improved coding interfaces, and better browser compatibility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing offers versatile deployment options, though its customer service has improved recently but remains inconsistent. Ranorex Studio provides flexible deployment on Windows, but its support team receives mixed reviews, with some users experiencing slow response times.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Functional Testing is often seen as costly with high licensing fees, valuable for large enterprises. Ranorex Studio offers more affordable pricing with flexible licensing, appealing to smaller companies. Both products demonstrate significant ROI through automation, with Ranorex's multi-license pricing attractive for large teams.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Ranorex Studio Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Ranorex Studio

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,497 peers since 2012

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

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

12th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

14th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (8th), Regression Testing Tools (7th)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.3%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers	2.9%
Ranorex Studio	3.3%
Other	93.8%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework, and they work well together.

Read full review

Aws V

IT Team Leader -Automation Manager at Citco

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."

"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."

"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."

"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."

"The solution is very scalable."

"OpenText UFT Developer works well with record technology, making it valuable for recording."

"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."

"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pros

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

"The solution is stable."

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

"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."

"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."

"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."

"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."

"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers cons

"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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 automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."

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

More Ranorex Studio cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

"The price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers pricing and cost advice

"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."

"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."

"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."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Performing Arts

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	12
Large Enterprise	29

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	23

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

As of now, we don't have integration in the CI/CD pipeline, but they are supporting that as well. When your machine is in a locked state, you can even execute the Windows application automation. Mi...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText Functional Testing vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 48% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 12% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

Wikidi Testomato vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 5% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing for Developers Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 23% of the time

Qt Squish vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 13% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 2% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers

August 2025

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers report

Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

August 2025

Download Ranorex Studio product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

No data available

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers robust automation capabilities with support for complex algorithms, multi-platform testing, and developer-friendly integration using C# and Java, facilitating seamless testing transitions and efficient automation workflows.

This testing tool is highly valued for its integration with ALM and Jenkins, along with its developer-focused environment adaptable to Eclipse and Visual Studio. With AI-based object recognition, an object repository, and test framework integration, it bolsters DevOps practices while reducing IT workloads. Supporting UFT to LeanFT transition, it caters to SAP, Java, .NET environments, and more. Enhanced with stable automation, extensive protocol support, and both on-premises and cloud deployments, it targets performance, regression, and functional testing, while recording and screengrabs enhance automation capabilities. Future improvements could include expanded browser compatibility, enhanced JavaScript and mobile support, and better object recognition.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing for Developers?

Complex Algorithm Handling: Manages complex scenarios with ease, including fuzzy logic.
Developer-friendly: Enables coding in C# and Java, integrating seamlessly with popular IDEs.
AI-based Object Recognition: Enhances test automation through advanced object identification.
Extensive Protocol Support: Supports a wide range of protocols for diverse testing requirements.
Seamless Integration: Connects effortlessly with ALM and Jenkins, promoting continuous development.

What benefits can users expect when evaluating OpenText Functional Testing?

Efficient Test Automation: Streamlines test processes, optimizing resource allocation and reducing effort.
Multi-platform Flexibility: Facilitates cross-platform testing, accommodating desktop, web, and banking applications.
Reduced IT Workload: Simplifies automation tasks, decreasing the strain on IT resources.
Enhanced DevOps Support: Integrates well with DevOps practices for continuous testing advancements.

Organizations implement OpenText Functional Testing for complex test automation on desktop, web, and banking applications, supporting performance, regression, and functionality testing across environments like SAP, Java, and .NET. UFT aids in GUI, infrastructure, and ERP application automation, with deployment options including on-premises and cloud implementations. Enhanced screengrabs and recording features aid in practical test case development, while addressing emerging technology needs is a focus.

OpenText

Ranorex is a leading software development company that offers innovative test automation software. Ranorex makes testing easy, saves time in the testing process and empowers clients to ensure the highest quality of their products. Its flexible tools and quick ROI make it the ideal choice for companies of virtually any size – and this is why thousands of clients in over 60 countries trust in its excellence.

Ranorex

Sample Customers

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Ranorex Studio

September 2025

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Ranorex Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Ranorex Studio report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation 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.