Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText Functional Testing vs Ranorex Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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
2nd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
97
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (6th)
Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
14th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
12th
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 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.8%, down from 9.5% 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
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.8%
Ranorex Studio3.3%
Other87.9%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Q&A Highlights

Aug 24, 2016
 

Featured Reviews

Badari Mallireddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation becomes feasible with diverse application support and faster development
I have used UFT for web application automation, desktop application automation, and Oracle ERP automation UFT provides object identification, which is one of the easiest to use. It requires less coding, has built-in features for API testing, and most importantly, it supports more than just web…
Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"UFT is very strongly built. It's widely used, so there's a lot of support."
"OpenText UFT One offered valuable features by allowing us to build up libraries to streamline repetitive tasks, making scripting much easier."
"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."
"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"The most valuable feature is that it is fast during test execution, unlike LoadRunner."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"Object identification is good."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"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."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
 

Cons

"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"They need to reduce the licensing cost. There's pushback from customers because of the cost."
"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."
"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."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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.""
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"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."
"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."
"The price is reasonable."
"It's an expensive solution."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"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."
"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)."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"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.
867,497 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
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
Aug 23, 2016
UFT will support or Tricentis TOSCA .
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise71
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 do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Areas of OpenText Functional Testing that have room for improvement include having an option to store objects in the public repository when using Object Spy and adding objects, as it currently stor...
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.
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.
What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?
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 languag...
 

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: September 2025.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.