We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and UiPath Test Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"Object identification is good."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"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."
"It is a very scalable product."
"We are finding bugs and defects much faster."
"Our team used to require five to six days to complete the entire release or execution cycle. Now, we're able to complete it within just one or one and a half days."
"It facilitates the delegation of control to multiple users and offers an efficient way to organize tasks using labels."
"Being able to use regular expressions, activities, and attributes is valuable."
"It's effective at testing whatever automation we've built or making sure the automation we've built is working fine."
"UiPath's most valuable features are reusability and low-code aspects. It works across both desktop and web applications."
"We can generate our own workflow. In our case, it is a report on the PDF file. In the reporting category, we generally verify a couple of things and generate a lot of reports at the end of the day. It provides some useful details about the data captured from the PDF that we can put into an Excel file."
"If there are many queries on the web page, Ranorex will not render the page correctly. I had about 1,000 queries on the page, and the solution was not able to handle it."
"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 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."
"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."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"With Selenium, there is a plugin called Healenium, which helps automatically detect changed properties of objects. With one click, it automatically updates the object repository with the changed properties. I would like UiPath to add that capability."
"We are facing problems specifically with Desk Manager."
"The product releases sometimes have issues."
"Storing the test scripts is what needs to improve in the UiPath Test Suite, as it's currently a challenge to some extent. Maintaining the files is a bit challenging, especially when you need to keep those locally."
"We have output arguments in the workflow. We can check results only by using those arguments. It would be better to have some more options, such as screen variables. For example, in a workflow, if we want to check if an activity is present inside, we should be able to get the output to UiPath Test Suite through the activity itself. That would be great for testing."
"We'd like to see the solution integrate with more code or local frameworks."
"At FORWARD VI, we see new automations being built around AI and the ability to have developers understand how they can drive some of those AI capabilities with Studio. We are starting to see that. They should also drive that with UiPath Test Suite so that we can not only build that development side faster; we can also develop the tests that go along with it, hopefully automatically."
"Orchestrator is not easy to use or understand."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 9th in Test Automation Tools with 46 reviews while UiPath Test Suite is ranked 6th in Test Automation Tools with 17 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while UiPath Test Suite is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". On the other hand, the top reviewer of UiPath Test Suite writes "Can be used by non-developers, and saves us time, but the manual testing needs improvement". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and IBM Rational Functional Tester, whereas UiPath Test Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio and Telerik Test Studio. See our Ranorex Studio vs. UiPath Test Suite report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
