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

Ranorex Studio vs SmartBear TestComplete vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.4%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.9%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 18.9%, up from 17.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.
PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features
The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.

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 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 solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"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."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition)."
"Tosca is a low-code no-code automation tool, allowing direct automation and reusability of test cases."
"The most valuable feature is being able to create a test case by recording some scenarios and then leasing that task case to other scenarios."
"The reporting is really nice."
"Tricentis Tosca can be easily integrated with SAP infrastructure."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is the recovery and cleanup process. Suppose there is a list of test cases and one test case has failed, it should not impact the other test cases. We can reuse the same test case. We can change the configuration of parameters and then use the test cases on the same thing. So, that's a useful thing. Otherwise, we have to use the cleanup process. Another useful feature is to have our own library files. We can create our objects in the libraries and reuse them. There is no need to create duplicate data for that. They have been giving some enhancements recently which means integration is also there. They've integrated with different software like Jenkins, Bamboo. So, we can also create pipeline points. They have recently given SAP and everything, which is very useful."
"The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"They can make it more stable. I have used this tool for SAP applications. They have an alliance with SAP, and it mostly worked fine, but there were a few glitches. However, we got the required support from the Tricentis team. They are coming up with their new versions and upgrades with respect to how the Tricentis systems as cloud applications are updated, and it would be good if they have a robust accelerator pack."
"Tricentis Tosca is expensive. It should improve the testing of legacy systems and interfaces."
"The solution is expensive compared to other tools in the market."
"When using it with iOS devices, I cannot start automation directly and must use a remote machine."
"They need to improve on the reports after the execution of automation tests, since all the current organizations are looking for detailed graphical reports."
"One thing to improve in Tricentis Tosca is that it's not compatible with Excel based forms. Another area for improvement is that the tool is not compatible with OpenText applications. The support and licensing cost for it also need improvement. The tool also needs cloud support, as it's currently on-premises only."
"The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows."
"The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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)."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the pricing a ten. The licensing model is based on a yearly basis."
"The tool's pricing is lower than that of other automation tools."
"Tricentis Tosca is an expensive tool and the licensing is not simple."
"I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to talk about the pricing, but it has some significant costs. For example, you have to pay a license and maintenance fee. Then the rest of the terms are negotiable. We have to consider what we need and what benefit we get from it."
"There are different types of licenses: enterprise or professional. The cost varies."
"Tricentis Tosca should improve its pricing. It is expensive."
"The pricing and licensing of Tricentis Tosca were alright. Many customers look for end-to-end enterprise solutions, there were not many challenges with the pricing. However, the customers who are coming from Selenium or similar, feel they're paying a premium for this Tricentis Tosca license. If the right person is there for the implementation of the Tricentis Tosca, then it is one of the best tools in the market."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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 flexib...
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, ...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to imp...
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is...
What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?
For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
Orchestrated Service Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: August 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.