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

Perforce QA Wizard Pro [EOL] vs Ranorex Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 8, 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

Perforce QA Wizard Pro [EOL]
Average Rating
5.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.4
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ranorex Studio
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (19th), Mobile App Testing Tools (9th), Regression Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (15th)
 

Featured Reviews

AK
DevOps Engineer at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Shared change lists are helpful, but poor scalability leads to problems with instability
The biggest problems with this solution have to do with scale. If the load is high then your request is put on hold for a second, and then you have to handle it. If you make a lot of requests then it is your problem. It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time. Any additional request would be put on hold and made to wait for a few seconds. Once the network and infrastructure are loaded to handle the next request, it would proceed.
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

"The most valuable feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
"The most valuable feature is the option to pull changes from others or make local changes in your own change list."
"Based on my experience, this would be my tool of choice for test automation."
"Support is very quick; you can write to them and on the same day they will respond, and this is one of the best features."
"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."
"Easy to use - without any dev skills you can automate some nice things C# or VB.NET is used for development, and you can find a lot of information online Fast email support and a forum with several experienced users and Ranorex employees on it Online webinars to help you get started We can combine Ranorex with Jenkins and JIRA."
"The most valuable features of this solution are object recognition and the fact that you can memorize the objects."
"Ranorex Spy is the most valuable feature for us, as it provides functionalities for analysis of host or web applications, as well as information for test automation."
"The solution is stable."
"I tried to use different products Selenium, TestComplete, amongst others, but this was very familiar, fast, adaptable and flexible."
 

Cons

"It would be very helpful if a queue was implemented to handle, for example, 100 requests at the same time."
"Generally, we can say that we have not had an excellent experience with Perforce."
"More possibilities on mobile devices, as we have already encountered some problems with iFrames integrated in a web page."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"It needs a better connection to TFS."
"They need to improve their support of different web browsers along with Flash support."
"The current version of Ranorex Studio IDE is based on an old version of SharpDevelop IDE (3.2), but this is going to change soon (planned update to SharpDevelop 4.x)."
"Stability was an issue."
"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."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"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.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise23
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Ubisoft, Expedia, Honda, Samsung,Citrix
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 Tricentis, BrowserStack, Worksoft and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: March 2026.
885,376 professionals have used our research since 2012.