Ranorex Studio Reviews

Our usage was at least seven to eight months ago. We have web-based and desktop Windows applications, and automating the desktop applications was challenging. Ranorex provided the necessary keywords, especially for our shallow testing needs.

We did a couple of POCs using this solution. But at the end of the day, we went on with creating our own framework. So, we used it for a POC to check its working and feasibility analysis within our organization.

Ranorex is what we found more secure. They allowed installation on your machine, and the reports don't go to the internet. Being in a financial organization, we want our reports to remain confidential, not part of the public domain or public cloud. So that was one thing. 

Besides the flexibility that Ranorex offers, I'm an automation developer, and I appreciate the flexibility in terms of customization and other features. On the other hand, Katalon, or Test Project, uploads results to the public cloud and has a dependency on adding your own keywords and functions.

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. My team provides solutions to different teams, including those with limited technical expertise. 

Ranorex's user-friendly interface allows even non-technical users to automate with a minimal learning curve. So, the learning curve is less. The solution is accessible even to non-technical users with a shorter learning curve.

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.

We used it for about three to four months. We used the version 10.6. We used this solution for a short period, but we liked its security features and flexibility. It provides excellent support for desktop automation in Windows-based applications, which is a plus compared to Katalon. Katalon does not offer desktop-based automation.

The stability is quite good. So, initially, when we started, we were quite skeptical about the stability because we didn't know much about the features. But then it was quite stable. So we ran it one to five times, and it worked the same.

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. It is a stable solution. We faced some minor issues, but in general, it was okay. 

The customer service and support are quite well. They're reachable, and they provide proper guidance.

Positive

We used Test Project. There were several reasons for switching to Ranorex. 

Firstly, we were concerned about data security as our previous solution sent data to the internet. 

Secondly, it lacked support for Windows-based application automation. 

Thirdly, making changes was complex, especially creating custom keywords. For example, if as a developer, I might want to create a keyword. If they had different formats, it would be quite a cumbersome process to add a custom keyword.

Lastly, the tool was discontinued, and the paid version wasn't appealing.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup around eight out of ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy. It wasn't overly difficult; it's mainly an installation process with a learning curve on how to use the tool effectively.

It was deployed on-premises. We installed it on local machines. They have runners. So you can buy a license to run and trigger the execution from your own machine to different servers.

From installation to having everything set up for automation, the deployment takes around one day at most.

You have to request Ranorex, the license key, and tell them why they need the solution. What are you gonna do with it? Then they'll provide you a license key, and then you'll be able to install it. So that's just one of the hurdles. 

Then, you will get set up files. You can download the storage. You can easily set up by downloading or just visiting their site. With Ranorex, the main thing is that you have to request the setup, which is followed by a couple of details. 

We managed the deployment in-house. We have experience with installing automation tools, so no external assistance was needed. Just one person from my team worked on it.

But we didn't reach the maintenance stage. We conducted a POC, but we haven't started full-scale automation, so there hasn't been a need for ongoing maintenance.

However, we did reach out to Ranorex's support for help with specific issues, and they were reachable and provided guidance.

I'd rate it around five out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, not too cheap but not overly pricey.

We tried Catalog Studio, but desktop automation didn't work well, so we abandoned it.

The advice would be that you should have automation testers or allow experts to start with an idea of the tool. After that initial learning curve, it would become much easier, like a piece of cake. Proper training is essential for success.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We are a software developer and we use Ranorex Studio to test our own software before it's released to the óinsurance industry.

The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface.

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.

I have been using Ranorex Studio for approximately five years.

Ranorex Studio is a reliable solution.

I rate the stability of Ranorex Studio an eight out of ten.

I rate the scalability of Ranorex Studio a seven out of ten.

We do not use the solution as much as we could. We should probably use it more, but that would require more licenses and people.

The technical support can improve. When I contacted them they took a long time to answer questions.

I rate the support from Ranorex Studio a six out of ten.

Neutral

I have used TestComplete and iMacros prior to Ranorex Studio. They're not selling them anymore. Additionally, we tested Katalon Studio but it did not work for us. We found that Ranorex Studio was a more professional solution.

TestComplete is similar to Ranorex Studio, there are some advantages and some disadvantages. However, it is more expensive than Ranorex Studio. iMacros and Katalon Studio are not good.

The initial setup of Ranorex Studio is easy. The deployment took approximately 10 days. Our only difficulty was choosing what hardware we wanted to use.

I rate the initial setup of Ranorex Studio an eight out of ten.

We did the implementation of the solution ourselves. We only needed help with licensing. We had two to three people that did the implementation.

This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors.

The price of the solution was approximately €900. The upgrades tend to be a little less expensive.

Ranorex Studio does not require any maintenance but our software does.

My advice to others implementing this solution is for them to take it slowly, make sure to get everything right in the beginning, and then everything should be running smoothly.

I rate Ranorex Studio an eight out of ten.

A team of five technicians at our company use the solution for web automation. 

The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback.

Quality is expected because the solution is a Microsoft product. 

The solution does not support dual or regression testing where you run two test suites at the same time. Other products such as Katalon include the dual testing option. 

The language is entirely based on C# and VB.NET which limits users who have a background in Java. 

It takes a bit of time to get used to the solution. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable with no performance, mining code, or repository clone issues. I rate stability a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I have not needed to contact support because issues are solved by an internal reporting manager. He seeks support for the team if needed. 

The solution's framework was already in place when I joined the team and my focus was importing utilities. 

The solution was implemented in-house. 

Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees. 

The solution is a good tool but is not well known in the market or widely used. 

Many people prefer Selenium where you can import DLLs so it is important to stay familiar with Selenium instead of focusing solely on Ranorex or else you will fall behind in technical expertise.

We have decided to move to Katalon. 

The solution has good quality and functionality but I would not recommend it because of its unfamiliarity in the market. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for screen-based navigation.

The solution has its advantages, as it supports virtual machines. Thus, we can integrate it with the DevOps processes and Jenkins server.

Presently, the solution only supports Windows. It would be good if it also supports Ubuntu, as we have tools running on both systems.

We have been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. We have seven to eight users in our organization.

The solution's technical support team could be responsive.

The solution's initial setup process is easy and less time-consuming. We have to follow the steps mentioned on its website for installation. It is easy to maintain as well.

The solution is easy to learn. I advise others to understand their business requirements before making the purchase decision. They can also opt for tools like Katalon.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten because of the complexity of C-Sharp language. They should include Python language instead.

Ranorex Studio is an automation tool, that is primarily used to automate web and desktop applications.

Object identification is good. It is easy to identify and convenient for scripting as well, which is a good thing for us.

The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler.

The way objects are identified and how easily they can be identified, are areas that have room for improvement.

I have been working with Ranorex Studio for three years.

I believe that we are using the latest version.

Ranorex Studio is a stable solution.

In terms of scalability, Ranorex Studio is fine. I haven't had any problems. It's scalable and has been supporting multiple needs. Scalability is not an issue.

We have 10 to 15 people in our company who use this solution.

We are not looking to increase our usage. Our priorities are different. We are moving away from the licenses tools.

I'm not sure who the support team is, and they've never contacted us. We have 15, 20, or more licenses from them, and I've never been contacted to ask how things are going, or how is the assistance? Instead of my chasing them, I believe it should be the other way around. I'm satisfied with what I've received. I am aware that there are some shortcomings, but I have not contacted technical support for assistance.

I have been working with Micro Focus UFT One for ten years.

UFT is much more expensive, which is why were started using Ranorex Studio.

The initial setup is straightforward, it is not a problem.

In general, I believe it is ordered through the 104 internal portals, so it takes 30 minutes to an hour to install.

There's only one person who maintains everything. There are no major items that require to be maintained. Everything appears to be in working order. It's fine because it comes in a package.

We did not use an integrator or consultant.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I think it's a good tool, I would definitely, recommend it.

I would rate Ranorex Studio an eight out of ten.

I develop some test scripts on this solution.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

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 product is stable.

Technical support is responsive and helpful.

I just have my typical issues with any kind of automation tool where small changes require a lot of maintenance for me to be able to rerun the tests with some consistency. That really happens with any product that I've used so far, however. 

The other part of the tool that could use some improvement is I have an issue with the way it communicates with what they call runtime versions on remote stations. It's usually any minor firewall change or anything changed in our security system that seems to throw me off for a few days where I have to troubleshoot it and figure out why it's not working.

I'd like to be able to remotely record. It's not really an option unless I buy the main product. If I buy two licenses for it, I'd have that functionality. I'd like the main development side of it to be able to remotely record some of my scripts on remote machines.

I'd like to know their testing strategies and to know what they can automate and what they can't. It can become pretty frustrating if you're trying to automate something that changes on a monthly or weekly basis. 

I've been using the solution for about two years or so at this point. 

The solution has been fairly stable. I've only had a couple of crashes over two years. It's been a pretty decent product that way. Usually, if I have a problem, there's an update that happens fairly quickly and I can update the product fairly easily.

Technical support is basically email support. I don't really have to call in. When I do have a major issue, and I've had a couple of issues with what's called a repository of objects, I've had someone call me a couple of times. For the most part, it's just a quick email and they send me a resolution to it usually fairly quickly. They are pretty responsive.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. The only complexity was due to the fact that it uses a licensing model where any of my remote systems has to talk to a service on my main machine that has to use a specific port. Sometimes I have some issues with that. Initially, it took a while to set them up and get them to be able to talk to each other. Once I got it running, was been pretty consistent and has been for a while now.

We handled the deployment in-house and did not need the assistance of consultants or integrators. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'd rate the solution at about an eight out of ten. The reason I give it an eight - and I have pretty high standards - is it's not something where I needed somebody to guide me through installing it and preparing it and preparing my workstation. It's pretty self-sufficient that way and that's the type of product I like where I'm not having to go back to the vendor constantly.

My main piece of advice is to understand your environment and what you require. And understand what you can automate your tests on and what you can't. You can spend a lot of time on this and end up with nothing after.

We have a legacy desktop, so we've got a couple of legacy desktop apps — one written in Delphi 6 and another in .NET — but they're all done by installers.  So we were looking for a toolset that can interact and do some automation against desktop applications. The toolset was here when I came on board about five years ago, but it wasn't utilized. However, we've put it into play since then.

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.

We don't use Ranorex very heavily, so I can't really say. As I said, I've got one legacy developer who uses it to create automation scripts, and they use Ranorex for some basic local hosting. We're not using their cloud system or anything like that. So, it's a pretty small install base.

I've been using Ranorex Studio for about five years now. I worked with ALM and UFT for about six years in my last company before I came to this one.

Stability-wise, Ranorex has been fine. We haven't had any issues. I think we had a couple of problems trying to update one service pack, but support helped us resolve that quickly. Other than that, anytime we try to run something and hit a snag, nine times out of 10, there's already an update that we just need to download.

We don't use Ranorex support often, but I'd say it's an eight out of 10. Part of the challenge is that they are 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. But, I mean, for the price that we were looking for and how much we use it, we aren't looking to spend as much as we would on a UFT solution. So, Ranorex worked for us for what we needed to do, but now most of our applications are all web-based. And while Ranorex makes web-based applications, we have multiple divisions that all use different toolsets like Selenium and do all the coding in Visual Studio. So, we'll probably be moving on away from that as those legacy applications get phased out, but it works great for us until then.

Setting up Ranorex is really straightforward.

I don't have those numbers, but it's under $10,000. I think it's around $6,000 or something like that. We have, I believe, four floating licenses and one console license, so it's a pretty small install base. They have different licenses, including a node license, node lock license, or floating license. I believe their floating licenses are more expensive.

I'd rate Ranorex Studio eight out of 10. It works well for us. We can quickly add service agents wherever we need to so we can run multiple scripts in parallel. It runs pretty strongly. As I said, it just doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a UFT, but then again, it's a fraction of the cost.

I have some advice for people thinking about using Ranorex. If they're looking at using multiple users, they should consider having their codebase in Bitbucket or something other than Ranorex's proprietary solution. When we first stood this up, they didn't have a feed. They didn't have APIs in Bitbucket or anything else. But now that they do, we would probably be looking to migrate all of our code to Bitbucket or some other repository, so our IT system backs everything up. The options are that or Ranorex's cloud-based solution.

The main advantage of Bitbucket is security. So, if your system goes down, you have copies of the system backed up somewhere else. All of our codebase across the organization is managed through Bitbucket and also backed up securely. So we have all our security protocols in place for there. Ranorex's repository plays well with other platforms so that we could use those scripts somewhere else. The only other way to do it is by running them, recording them off something else, and then going back in and re-coding where we need to code to make it work. It's not real friendly to work with multiple teams if you do a single instance setup. So, if you were an organization looking at multiple users, I would recommend looking at the right solution on how numerous teams could use the coding of it and the run-time elements of Ranorex.

We use Ranorex for automating the testing of the GUI components in our applications.

Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations. Using the code conversion option means that you can easily write the code the way you want.

The object detection functionality needs to be improved.  We have found that when you are selecting objects by moving the mouse, and then the position of these objects change in the newer versions of the application, the test tool fails to correctly identify them.

We have been using Ranorex for about three years.

Stability is fine and we have had no problem with it.

We haven't had any problems in terms of scalability. We have more than five people using it, and their roles range from developer to management.

We have been in contact with technical support and they are responsive. It is fair to say that they have resolved our issues quickly.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The licensing fees depend on the number of users.

When we started using this tool a few years ago, we had finished an evaluation where Ranorex was the winner in terms of capability.

We will be working on new products and we are in the process of looking at more test automation tools. Right now, we are investigating Telerik Test Studio to see if it has more capability than Ranorex.

My advice for anybody who is considering Ranorex is that it is a powerful tool, it is far-reaching, and it works as advertised. In my opinion, it is one of the best tools available in the market.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My clients are using Ranorex Studio for functional testing automatization.

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.

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.

I have been using Ranorex Studio for approximately two years.

We are using out-of-the-box features only with Ranorex Studio and the stability has been good.

I rate the stability of Ranorex Studio a four out of five.

The scalability of the solution is good.

We only have two engineers using this tool for automating their business use cases.

I rate the scalability of Ranorex Studio a four out of five.

I have not contacted the support from Ranorex Studio because we have not had any issues.

Ranorex Studio is straightforward to do the initial setup. There is a lot of flexibility given to understand the functionality, it's very easy to understand the existing functionality, and what is available in desktop applications.

The full deployment does not take more than a day with everything updated and the scripts running.

We use two engineers for the deployment of the solution.

I rate Ranorex Studio a nine out of ten.

This solution is used to automate registration tests. This prevents the need to manually run the tests which takes a lot of time.

I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy.

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.

I have been using this solution for about a month.

This is a stable solution.

We currently have two users and have plans to expand the number of users in a month or two.

Support was able to help us well during the initial setup.

We used Rational Robot and Coded UI in the past and still use them to a certain extent, though they are becoming obsolete. Ranorex is more up-to-date and provides more support for testing.

The initial setup for this solution was straightforward. It took us a few days to set up two virtual machines - one for the database and another for the clients and Ranorex.

The setup was mostly done by our in-house team with the occasional support from Ranorex. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.