We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and Silk Test based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, SeleniumHQ, Micro Focus and others in Functional Testing Tools."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."
"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."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"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 its user-friendly interface."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"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."
"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."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 13th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 1 review. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while Silk Test is rated 8.0. 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 Silk Test writes " Supports SAP functional testing and recognizes SAP objects in GUI mode". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus UFT One and Selenium HQ, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Apache JMeter, Micro Focus UFT Developer and Eggplant Test.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.
