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

OpenText Functional Testing vs Ranorex Studio comparison

 

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
3rd
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
8th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
16th
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 July 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.5%, down from 9.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.5%, up from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.5%
Ranorex Studio3.5%
Other89.0%
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

"If you're a company that is working with any legacy systems, and you need automation with both web-based applications and terminal-based applications, the solution would be a good thing to use."
"It is a stable solution."
"The return on investment for any company buying this product license is 100 percent, as businesses with clients increase productivity when manual tasks becomes faster and efficient by automating them with this tool."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of the tests, which saves us a lot of time, especially during the regression tests."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"Micro Focus UFT is a good product in my opinion; I can say it's a stable system and it's a legacy, and we have been using it for a long time."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"Ranorex improved our ui automation by providing handy features such as WaitForExists, Exists, Enabled, Visible"
"This is way better than QTP and Silktest when compared to in following aspects: User friendly UI, Cost of Tool, Continuous Integration, Instant release of updated add-on as per latest technologies and browsers, Full fledged trial product for exact 30 days."
"Based on my experience, this would be my tool of choice for test automation."
"Dynamically changing application or a desktop application which is challenging to automate, blindly go for Ranorex."
"Ranorex is more up-to-date and provides more support for testing."
"I tried to use different products Selenium, TestComplete, amongst others, but this was very familiar, fast, adaptable and flexible."
"We went with Ranorex due to its relative ease of use, and its support for automating desktop/WPF applications out of the box."
 

Cons

"The problem with the solution is that you need to have highly specialized skills in order to make the scripts."
"Technical support could be improved."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"HP has a policy that software updates for the QTP/UFT products are only available to licensed users with a service agreement. However this policy extends beyond version upgrades to software patches, and the problem this poses is that any potential customer that downloads the tool for use with a 30-day trial license must work with an unpatched version that is often less stable than the patched version in use by licensed long-term customers."
"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."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"The amount of space it utilizes on the client side is quite excessive."
"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."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"I would like it to be more intuitive to use, especially in test management."
"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."
"More possibilities on mobile devices, as we have already encountered some problems with iFrames integrated in a web page."
"We are mainly working for manufacturing OEMs but the integration is not available."
"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."
"Snapshots for WPF applications taking too long than expected."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"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."
"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."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"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 licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"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)."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
905,526 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
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
 

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.
905,526 professionals have used our research since 2012.