No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Functional Testing vs Ranorex Studio comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
3rd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (3rd)
Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
17th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.1%, down from 8.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.4%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.1%
Ranorex Studio3.4%
Other88.5%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Q&A Highlights

Aug 24, 2016
 

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.
Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"OpenText Functional Testing has an impressive ability to connect to mobile devices and its ability to test so many different types of software, whether it be mainframe, APIs, mobile, web, or desktop."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"It's allowed us to perform functional testing (to verify a specific action or function of code) for each product update."
"It is a stable solution."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"I’ve always found their support second to none, with responses to my questions answered promptly and technical staff who are extremely technical, which is refreshing given the generally basic support previously experienced from other vendors."
"Since it is possible to reference the API from some other tools and solutions, instead of being forced to use Ranorex studio, we gained a lot on flexibility and re-using our existing tools and technologies in combination with Ranorex features which are relevant for our test automation process."
"With a small team of one onshore person and three offshore people, I was able to show the value of $90,000 savings for a project as a POC and the customer is currently using this tool for several other projects in their organization after seeing the ROI for one project."
"Customer Service: Ranorex’s customer service is outstanding."
"Ranorex improved our ui automation by providing handy features such as WaitForExists, Exists, Enabled, Visible"
"Dynamically changing application or a desktop application which is challenging to automate, blindly go for Ranorex."
"By our calculations we are now getting a return of 50% time saved in team efforts, making the team 50% more productive."
"It's easy to use the test suite and add test cases to do our product bug fixes, and software pre-release regression tests, and continuous Integration testing with Jenkins CI tool for each software build test."
 

Cons

"When I ran the script for two or three times sequentially, the tool hung and wouldn’t respond."
"The core application that we're using in our company is a bit special and resistant to automation."
"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."
"I would want to see a significant improvement in the tool's features. The most significant enhancements are support for panel execution and integration with DevSecOps."
"When the number of automation tests are very high, say 5000 to 10000, even with eight to 10 licenses, UFT can take over 24 hours for execution."
"There were some issues with deployment and the integration into Solution Manager."
"I don't like this tool and I don't think that it's a successful example for automation."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"More possibilities on mobile devices, as we have already encountered some problems with iFrames integrated in a web page."
"Their logs are not compatible with the continuous integration we use internally."
"There was one instance where I had an issue and contacted them for a solution; they were unable to provide it, and I ended up finding a workaround on my own."
"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."
"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."
"They should have support for other OS’s, aside from only supporting Windows."
"The compatibility with different browsers needs to be improved."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The price is reasonable."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"It's an expensive solution."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"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."
"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."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
911,952 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

Aug 24, 2016
Aug 24, 2016
Thanks all, it's encouraging to see so much support and responses
2 out of 16 answers
it_user83412 - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
Aug 23, 2016
All of these solutions are based on scripts and face the associated limitations. Test data management, parameterization, dynamic TBOMs, BPCA, SolMan integration and script maintenance all pose potential issues. I'd recommend looking at Tricentis Tosca or Worksoft, both of which provide scriptless automation for SAP GUI. Tosca also supports Fiori and NWBC natively as well as over 30 different UI and API technologies. [FULL DISCLOSURE: I work for Tricentis, so obviously biased, but we serve many SAP clients]
it_user457878 - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Aug 23, 2016
UFT will support or Tricentis TOSCA .
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: July 2026.
911,952 professionals have used our research since 2012.