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 Sep 21, 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 (5th)
Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
10th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
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 October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, down from 9.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.2%, down from 3.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
Ranorex Studio3.2%
Other88.3%
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

"The stop automation is a great feature."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"Object identification is good."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"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'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."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"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."
 

Cons

"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"There could be improvements in report export features similar to SmartBear."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"I would like to have detailed description provided to test the cloud-based applications."
"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."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"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."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool's price is high."
"It's an expensive solution."
"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.""
"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."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"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."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
871,829 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
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Retailer
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...
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: October 2025.
871,829 professionals have used our research since 2012.