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

"Its ease of use means we've been able to ramp up non-technical users and have them understand how to do general debugging very easily."
"Our current project features more than a 1000 manual test cases, which took several days and resources to execute, and now the suite executes in six hours and less than two when run on multiple machines."
"It's scalable on the enterprise level; I have already scaled a project with UFT One at enterprise level, and I am using it because it is very scalable compared to open-source tools and many other tools on the market."
"UFT is an expensive tool that can save you a lot of time and effort and provide great value for money if used correctly, but also turn out as ineffective related to value-for-money if used the wrong way."
"It's allowed us to perform functional testing (to verify a specific action or function of code) for each product update."
"UFT One is 100 percent stable."
"The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"Based on my experience, this would be my tool of choice for test automation."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"Ranorex is a great tool to learn automation with pleasure."
"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."
"Customer Service: Ranorex’s customer service is outstanding."
"I implemented this tool for several of my customers and I can see the ROI right away."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"It works well for us, we can quickly add service agents wherever we need to so we can run multiple scripts in parallel, and it runs pretty strongly while costing just a fraction of a UFT solution."
 

Cons

"The scalability is good, although it’s not without its problems."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"I'd like to see test case-related reports included in the solution."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization."
"Having an Object Repository that is not stored but built through the run is the most difficult and time consuming task."
"I would like Micro Focus to provide more information on their portal about their newer products. The information about UFT One was outdated. The image recognition features could also be better."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"No real issues, but I had to force close Ranorex Studio a couple of times, as it was stuck with the 'Not Responding' message for a long time on Windows 7."
"I would like to see Ranorex come up with a load balancing tool for test execution."
"For a very long time, we were running into crashes with either Ranorex or Ranorex's utility (UIALauncher) which would stop our testing dead in its tracks."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"Any minor change to a repository can result in a version control system nightmare, making it more difficult when working in teams."
"While the product does well with its primary job of testing, when we are using Ranorex it would be nice if it would report directly in HTML."
"SQL Connector has a lot of improvements to make, and they need to implement user-defined queries."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"The price is reasonable."
"It's an expensive solution."
"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"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."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"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)."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
912,788 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
9%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
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.
912,788 professionals have used our research since 2012.