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."
"With a small team of one onshore person and three offshore people, I was able to show the value of $90,000 savings for a project as a POC and the customer is currently using this tool for several other projects in their organization after seeing the ROI for one project."
"We tried using HP QTP and Selenium, but opted for Ranorex because of its reasonable price and the ease of use of the automation tool."
"Customer Service: Excellent – very quick and detailed responses. Technical Support: Excellent – very quick and detailed responses."
"Cross browser testing and the ability to perform mobile test automation mean you do not need to buy two different solutions for mobile and web channels separately."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"Using this product, we have been able create and manage UI automation in the best possible way."
"Object identification is good, it is easy to identify and convenient for scripting as well, which is a good thing for us."
"The solution is stable."
 

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."
"I have proposed few suggestions to them in the product improvement area."
"For a very long time, we were running into crashes with either Ranorex or Ranorex's utility (UIALauncher) which would stop our testing dead in its tracks."
"More possibilities on mobile devices, as we have already encountered some problems with iFrames integrated in a web page."
"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."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"Support for Mac and Linux would be handy, it supports only Windows"
"It's usually any minor firewall change or anything changed in our security system that seems to throw me off for a few days where I have to troubleshoot it and figure out why it's not working."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"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."
"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)."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
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.
 

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.