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 Aug 14, 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
20th
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
112
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.1%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 17.6%, down from 18.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis Tosca17.6%
Ranorex Studio3.1%
Other79.3%
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.
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

"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."
"Object identification is good."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"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."
"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 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."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"The Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."
"The model-based scriptless automation is the most valuable feature because it needs less maintenance as compared to script-based automation."
"It's stable and reliable."
"One notable feature is its ability to handle negative XPath healing processes. If one XPath fails, Tosca can utilize backup XPaths to ensure test cases do not fail due to locator issues, thereby focusing on identifying application-side issues, which is the ultimate goal."
"It is easy to automate tasks, highly flexible, straightforward to learn, and easy to maintain."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"Image recognition: It has allowed us to automate a GUI section of our product which involves drawing different topologies."
 

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."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"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."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"The reporting function was lacking in usability and detail."
"The initial setup was complex."
"It would be of great help if they can fix the loading or performance issues. Sometimes, when I create the test case folder and test cases, it feels like it has loading or performance issues. When passing the objects, we can't sometimes find the exact element. We need to find out that exact location and just give the path for that, and then it works. In the pipeline, when creating Jenkins, we create the list execution for passing the execution list to the commander. I feel it is a bit late, by a fraction of seconds. I first thought it could be my mistake or a setting issue, but I worked on that, and it's not a mistake or a setting issue."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"The solution is expensive."
"It needs better integration with JIRA."
"The Vision AI implementation works very slowly, affecting the speed of our work."
"Setup wasn't that straightforward; it was more complex. It all depends on the environment, because there were a lot of errors on our applications. Therefore, it wasn't an easy setup for us."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"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)."
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"The tool is expensive. It has become overpriced, especially after Tricentis Tosca grew as a company. Initially, we bought a license with an annual support fee, which wasn't too expensive. However, they changed the model, and now we have to purchase a license yearly, which has become quite costly."
"Tosca is expensive. I don't see small and medium customers going for it. It's always large enterprises that have a big pocket. It is very expensive as compared to the other tools that we have in the market. They should reduce the price by half, and if they do that, they would do better business. From the competition perspective, other solutions are at a pretty similar level. UiPath is also very expensive. One thing that I always wanted was a short-term consumption license. With Tricentis, the biggest challenge is that you have to go for a minimum of one year license, and they also try to sell you a three-year license. It would be good if people can get a three-month or four-month consumption license."
"It is expensive."
"Pricing for Tricentis Tosca could be improved because it's very expensive."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is on the higher side."
"Although the product is slightly more expensive than tools, its automation capabilities and reduced scripting needs justify the cost."
"I would like to see better costing packs. There are several features but USD $11,000 for one license is expensive."
"A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
872,922 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
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 Enterprise71
 

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: October 2025.
872,922 professionals have used our research since 2012.