We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and ReadyAPI based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"Object identification is good."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"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."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"The feature that allows you to import an API collection or a project is valuable."
"One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration."
"ReadyAPI's best features are user-friendliness, smooth integration with Postman, the speed of creating test cases, and integration with customer data."
"It's easy to implement."
"It's easy to automate for more data-driven testing."
"It's great for those that don't have as much exposure to programming."
"Reporting is more robust than other products because test reports can be exported in multiple ways."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the ready-to-use assertions and filters which can perform the validation. If we want to filter out any value, the filters are available. Apart from that database integration, if you want to go ahead and perform validation in the database layer it is possible with the ready-to-use feature available. The execution and reporting are rich features."
"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."
"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."
"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 solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"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."
"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."
"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 automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"I don't like how they don't have a clear way to manage tests between multiple projects."
"To generate a test suite in API, I had to create a separate one each time because otherwise it was just override the test. Each API had to be added separately. I thought I could just have one and then create different methods, but I had to add each API separately to create the test for that. That is an area that could be improved."
"Areas for improvement include the security files, endpoints, and process sessions."
"The overall scope of this solution is limited and could be improved."
"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."
"The solution is made up of multiple tools, and the one additional feature we'd like to have is load testing."
"The Property Transfer capability could be more user friendly because it is a bit difficult to understand."
"The UI is not user-friendly."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 13th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while ReadyAPI is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 24 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while ReadyAPI is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "We can quickly add service agents wherever we need to so we can run multiple scripts in parallel". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus UFT One and Sauce Labs, whereas ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Test, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio and Parasoft SOAtest. See our Ranorex Studio vs. ReadyAPI report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
