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

Ranorex Studio vs pCloudy comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 4, 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

pCloudy
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (14th), Regression Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Mobile App Testing Tools category, the mindshare of pCloudy is 0.6%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 8.3%, down from 8.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rabindra Kumar Maharana - PeerSpot reviewer
Very good on the UI level and reasonably priced
We are customers of pCloudy.  We only use cloud devices and pCloudy is cheaper compared to Amazon and other tools. The product is also very good on the UI level where they can see the logs. They can discover any problem at the app level, so that the development team can fix that. The connectivity…
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 product is user-friendly. We can see the logs when we find the bugs."
"The product is very good on the UI level."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
 

Cons

"The tool has connectivity issues. I had raised the issue with the support team who had asked me to check my internet connection and refresh the browser. I want that communication to be present at a UI level. I want a pop-up that asks users to refresh the page or check their internet connection. The product's reports also need to be optimized and refined to be presented in a better way. The tool needs to add a search option that will help users filter and extract the information that they need."
"The connectivity is always a challenge for us."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"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."
"When Ranorex is upgraded, the compatibility with other projects, in version control, in-house or on-premise, fails on occasion. However, overall, the stability is good."
"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."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"We are mainly working for manufacturing OEMs but the integration is not available. It would be a benefit if they built one integration tool for all the Teamcenter home servers and software as the main PLM data source. It is a simple process at this time, the integration could be made easier."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the tool's pricing a six-point five out of ten. It is neither too low nor high. The product has different packages like gold, silver, and platinum. The number of users is determined on the basis of the package. My company has subscribed for the product's annual plan."
"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."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"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 Mobile App Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about pCloudy?
The product is user-friendly. We can see the logs when we find the bugs.
What needs improvement with pCloudy?
The tool has connectivity issues. I had raised the issue with the support team who had asked me to check my internet connection and refresh the browser. I want that communication to be present at a...
What is your primary use case for pCloudy?
My company's ground crew and cabin crew use an application. The solution helps the application to be compatible with other devices.
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...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Philips, Capgemini, Honeywell, Jio, Northwell Health, Swiggy
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 Ranorex Studio vs. pCloudy and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.