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

Ranorex Studio vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 16, 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

Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
16th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.3%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 14.2%, down from 19.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis Tosca14.2%
Ranorex Studio3.3%
Other82.5%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.
SJ
Test Automation Specialist at Accenture
Has useful scanning, basic web application automation, and data validation capabilities
The main issue with Tricentis Tosca is its cost, which is very high. Although using Tosca can reduce the number of testers needed compared to open-source tools like Selenium, companies might still need to focus on resources. I would recommend Tricentis reduce the cost of its licenses. I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten as I am satisfied with it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"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."
"Object identification is good."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"I face no challenges or stability issues."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"You can push transactions through to live, and you can intercept some transactions and return them back with mocked data."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"It's stable and reliable."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"It offers many features, such as risk-based testing and scenario creation using Kafka."
 

Cons

"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"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."
"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."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"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."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"I would say the reporting part of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
"The solution is expensive compared to other tools in the market."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
"The product needs to improve its pricing. It also needs to improve the infrastructure and DEX agent setup."
"The document object model or some aspects of it has a bit of a learning curve."
"I would like a better user interface."
"With regard to areas of improvement, report customization should be easier. It would be good if Tosca could provide standard reports for at least 20 variants. At present, there are only three to four variants. The mobile engine needs to be faster and easier to use; it is a bit cumbersome. Also, the object identification in the mobile engine needs improvement. I would like to see easy-to-use customizations for reports in the next release."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"We hired a consultant to figure out all the tools in our company and how they fit in our company before we purchased the solution."
"Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked."
"It is expensive."
"I rate the price of Tricentis Tosca a two out of five."
"Pricing could be better."
"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."
"The licensing cost for Tricentis Tosca is expensive. It has multiple features, but to use all of its features, you have to pay for additional licenses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
879,986 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
6%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise23
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise72
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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 UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
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 scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
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
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
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 Ranorex Studio vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
879,986 professionals have used our research since 2012.