Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
Telerik Test Studio Logo

Top 10 Telerik Test Studio Alternatives

Vendor: Progress Software
4.0 out of 5
Leave a review

Top Telerik Test Studio Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Telerik Test Studio based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, and OpenText Functional Testing. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Progress Software Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Progress Software, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Tricentis Tosca
4.1 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Tricentis Tosca
4.1 out of 5
Tricentis Tosca offers advanced automated testing capabilities for complex environments. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio prioritizes usability, providing ease of setup and cost-effectiveness. Tech buyers may choose Tosca for comprehensive coverage or Test Studio for fast deployment and lower costs.
Download Telerik Test Studio vs. Tricentis Tosca Report
Tricentis Tosca's setup cost is lower than that of Telerik Test Studio, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment. Tarot Test Studio users also mention a more intuitive setup, enhancing user experience despite the higher cost.
View comparison
Pricing
Tricentis Tosca's setup cost is lower than that of Telerik Test Studio, highlighting a significant difference in initial investment. Tarot Test Studio users also mention a more intuitive setup, enhancing user experience despite the higher cost.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Katalon Studio
3.9 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Katalon Studio
3.9 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio offers robust cross-browser testing and seamless integration, ideal for complex environments. In comparison, Katalon Studio's all-in-one platform supports web, API, mobile, and desktop applications. Telerik's higher initial costs come with advanced features, while Katalon provides cost-effective deployment and flexible pricing.
Download Katalon Studio vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
Telerik Test Studio has a significant setup cost with additional licensing fees, while Katalon Studio offers a lower initial setup investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Telerik Test Studio has a significant setup cost with additional licensing fees, while Katalon Studio offers a lower initial setup investment.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Telerik Test Studio Logo
OpenText Functional Testing
4.0 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing is ideal for complex environments with its integration capabilities. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio offers a user-friendly setup, emphasizing simplicity and quick test creation. OpenText suits scalability needs, while Telerik appeals to smaller teams seeking efficiency and rapid deployment.
Download OpenText Functional Testing vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
OpenText Functional Testing incurs higher setup costs, while Telerik Test Studio offers a more budget-friendly implementation.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing incurs higher setup costs, while Telerik Test Studio offers a more budget-friendly implementation.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Apache JMeter
3.9 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Apache JMeter
3.9 out of 5
Apache JMeter is open-source and excels in load testing and customization, appealing to those prioritizing cost efficiency. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio offers robust automation and seamless integration with comprehensive support, attracting users who value intuitive setups despite a higher price tag.
Download Apache JMeter vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
Apache JMeter offers a cost-effective setup option, while Telerik Test Studio involves higher initial expenses. Users seeking budget-friendly solutions may lean towards Apache JMeter, contrasting with Telerik Test Studio's more premium pricing approach.
View comparison
Pricing
Apache JMeter offers a cost-effective setup option, while Telerik Test Studio involves higher initial expenses. Users seeking budget-friendly solutions may lean towards Apache JMeter, contrasting with Telerik Test Studio's more premium pricing approach.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Telerik Test Studio Logo
SmartBear TestComplete
3.8 out of 5
SmartBear TestComplete excels with affordability and customer support for flexible scripting. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio offers advanced features, particularly in performance testing. SmartBear's ease of deployment attracts budget-conscious buyers, while Telerik appeals to those valuing feature-rich, long-term automation capabilities.
Download SmartBear TestComplete vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
SmartBear TestComplete offers a quick and straightforward setup, while Telerik Test Studio may involve a more intricate initial configuration process. This distinction highlights TestComplete's advantage in ease of initial deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
SmartBear TestComplete offers a quick and straightforward setup, while Telerik Test Studio may involve a more intricate initial configuration process. This distinction highlights TestComplete's advantage in ease of initial deployment.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Telerik Test Studio Logo
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)
4.2 out of 5
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering excels in advanced performance testing, appealing to buyers needing deep analytics. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio provides versatile, intuitive automation suitable for teams seeking quicker integration, cost-effectiveness, and easier deployment, making it ideal for budget-conscious organizations.
Download OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) typically involves a higher initial setup cost compared to Telerik Test Studio. Telerik Test Studio offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it an attractive option for businesses with limited resources.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) typically involves a higher initial setup cost compared to Telerik Test Studio. Telerik Test Studio offers a more budget-friendly setup, making it an attractive option for businesses with limited resources.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Selenium HQ
4.0 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Selenium HQ
4.0 out of 5
Selenium HQ, with its open-source framework, offers flexibility and customization for developers seeking adaptability across multiple languages and platforms. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio attracts teams with its user-friendly design, providing integrated test management and extensive analytics for efficient, supported automation.
Download Selenium HQ vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
Selenium HQ offers a cost-effective setup suitable for developers, while Telerik Test Studio presents a higher setup cost but delivers comprehensive features for enterprise environments.
View comparison
Pricing
Selenium HQ offers a cost-effective setup suitable for developers, while Telerik Test Studio presents a higher setup cost but delivers comprehensive features for enterprise environments.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Ranorex Studio
4.0 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Ranorex Studio
4.0 out of 5
Ranorex Studio stands out for its competitive pricing and simplified deployment, appealing to cost-conscious buyers. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio offers extensive integration capabilities and superior customer service, attracting those valuing advanced features despite higher initial costs for comprehensive development tools.
Download Ranorex Studio vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
Ranorex Studio has a higher setup cost, while Telerik Test Studio offers a more cost-effective initial setup, making the latter a more budget-friendly option in terms of setup expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Ranorex Studio has a higher setup cost, while Telerik Test Studio offers a more cost-effective initial setup, making the latter a more budget-friendly option in terms of setup expenses.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Testim
4.6 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Testim
4.6 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio offers strong integration and reporting, suitable for enterprises seeking detailed solutions. In comparison, Testim focuses on AI-driven adaptability and speed, ideal for agile teams. Users choose based on their need for comprehensive analytics or fast, flexible automation.
Download Telerik Test Studio vs. Testim Report
Telerik Test Studio offers a competitive setup cost, allowing for efficient test automation deployment. Testim provides a scalable pricing model with various options, highlighting flexibility for diverse testing needs.
View comparison
Pricing
Telerik Test Studio offers a competitive setup cost, allowing for efficient test automation deployment. Testim provides a scalable pricing model with various options, highlighting flexibility for diverse testing needs.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
UiPath Test Cloud
3.9 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
UiPath Test Cloud
3.9 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio offers cost-effective solutions with excellent support, making it ideal for budget-conscious projects. In comparison, UiPath Test Cloud's advanced AI capabilities and cloud integration appeal to tech buyers seeking innovative test automation and scalability despite higher initial costs.
Download Telerik Test Studio vs. UiPath Test Cloud Report
Telerik Test Studio offers competitive setup costs, while UiPath Test Cloud presents a more streamlined and potentially less expensive initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Telerik Test Studio offers competitive setup costs, while UiPath Test Cloud presents a more streamlined and potentially less expensive initial setup.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Qt Squish
4.4 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Qt Squish
4.4 out of 5
Qt Squish is preferred for its cross-platform flexibility and scripting language support. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio offers advanced test management and integration capabilities. Qt Squish suits technical teams, while Telerik Test Studio appeals to organizations valuing ease of deployment and comprehensive features.
Download Qt Squish vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
Qt Squish's setup cost is lower, focusing on powerful scripting and automation capabilities, whereas Telerik Test Studio offers a straightforward setup with comprehensive test management features.
View comparison
Pricing
Qt Squish's setup cost is lower, focusing on powerful scripting and automation capabilities, whereas Telerik Test Studio offers a straightforward setup with comprehensive test management features.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Telerik Test Studio Logo
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers
3.7 out of 5
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers appeals to teams focused on integration with continuous testing environments. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio provides an edge in automation flexibility and environmental compatibility. OpenText is cost-effective for budget-conscious buyers, while Telerik offers superior long-term ROI through reduced manual effort.
Download OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs. Telerik Test Studio Report
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers straightforward setup costs, while Telerik Test Studio may require more investment initially. The marked difference in setup cost influences the decision for teams prioritizing budget constraints versus comprehensive tool capabilities.
View comparison
Pricing
OpenText Functional Testing for Developers offers straightforward setup costs, while Telerik Test Studio may require more investment initially. The marked difference in setup cost influences the decision for teams prioritizing budget constraints versus comprehensive tool capabilities.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Telerik Test Studio Logo
Visual Studio Test Professional
4.2 out of 5
Visual Studio Test Professional integrates seamlessly with Microsoft's ecosystem, making it ideal for existing Microsoft users seeking enhanced collaboration. In comparison, Telerik Test Studio offers advanced automation capabilities and flexible deployment, appealing to those requiring comprehensive testing across varied environments despite its higher costs.
Download Telerik Test Studio vs. Visual Studio Test Professional Report
Visual Studio Test Professional offers a moderate setup cost, while Telerik Test Studio provides a higher setup cost, highlighting a key difference in initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Visual Studio Test Professional offers a moderate setup cost, while Telerik Test Studio provides a higher setup cost, highlighting a key difference in initial investment.
Telerik Test Studio Logo
UBIK Load Pack
1 out of 5
Telerik Test Studio Logo
UBIK Load Pack
1 out of 5

Enterprise Grade load testing plugins for Apache JMeter. 

View comparison

Related categories

Functional Testing Tools
Load Testing Tools
Regression Testing Tools