"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable feature for UFT is the ability to test a desktop application."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"Integrates well with other products."
"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"Object identification is good."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"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."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"The pricing could be improved."
"UFT Developer is good, but it requires high-level development skills. Scripting is something that everybody should know to be able to work with this product. Currently, it is very development intensive, and you need to know various scripting languages. It would be good if the development effort could be cut short, and it can be scriptless like Tosca. It will help in more adoption because not every team has people with a software engineering background. If it is scriptless, the analysts who wear multiple hats and come from different backgrounds can also use it in a friendly manner. It is also quite expensive."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"I have to keep the remote machine open while the tests are running, otherwise, it leads to instability."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"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."
"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."
"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."
Micro Focus UFT Developer is ranked 10th in Test Automation Tools with 7 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 9th in Test Automation Tools with 5 reviews. Micro Focus UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Ranorex Studio is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT Developer writes "Great features with good stability and an easy initial setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "We can quickly add service agents wherever we need to so we can run multiple scripts in parallel". Micro Focus UFT Developer is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Visual Studio Test Professional and Micro Focus UFT Mobile, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Tricentis Tosca, froglogic Squish and Worksoft Certify. See our Micro Focus UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
