OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs Ranorex Studio comparison

OpenText and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #18 with an average rating of 7.7, while Ranorex is ranked #19. OpenText holds a 1.6% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.3% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

OpenText Functional Testing...

Read 19 OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web reviews

1,143 Views
800 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

3,078 Views
1,878 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranorex Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 28, 2025

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web and Ranorex Studio compete in the automated testing of mobile and web applications category. OpenText is noted for its flexible pricing and support, while Ranorex is preferred for its comprehensive features.

Features: OpenText is known for robust mobile testing capabilities, seamless integration with other OpenText solutions, and effective customer support. Ranorex offers codeless testing options, rich reporting, cross-platform testing, and advanced automation capabilities.

Room for Improvement: OpenText can improve in providing more detailed onboarding resources and more extensive integration capabilities. Ranorex could enhance user experience by simplifying setup processes and providing more intuitive user interfaces. Both could benefit from expanding their global device testing capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText is appreciated for its simple and quick setup process and efficient customer service, facilitating smooth transitions. Ranorex requires more initial setup effort but offers detailed onboarding resources, balanced by robust support documentation.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText offers flexible pricing models aimed at quick ROI. Ranorex, with higher upfront costs, promises substantial long-term ROI due to its expansive feature set. OpenText is more cost-effective initially, while Ranorex provides significant returns over time.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Ranorex Studio Report (Updated: January 2026).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Ranorex Studio

January 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 peers since 2012

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

OpenText Functional Testing...

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

18th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

19th

Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools

9th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (16th)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is 1.6%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.3%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web	1.6%
Ranorex Studio	3.3%
Other	95.1%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer2356440

Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Experienced ease in automation with strong support while seeking improvements in low-code options

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers flexibility of deployment, from on-premises to UFT One which is on the cloud. They provide capability for immediate deployment, and assets can be migrated easily. They include enablers specifically for quick migration of test assets. While I have not personally been involved in these migrations, I have observed some clients using it directly while others make a complete shift from OpenText to Tricentis platforms. There have not been many clients moving from OpenText platforms from on-premises to cloud because most shifts have been toward different product categories such as Tricentis altogether.

Read full review

Aws V

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"There are numerous valuable features such as automation, the ones that facilitate importing and synchronization capabilities between our platform, Jira, and Azure DevOps."

"The solution is easy to use. There are features to orchestrate mobile testing, including mobile testing automation. You can test different devices at the same time."

"The ease of use and being able to enroll more people into developing test scripts using their AI function, which they call AI but is OCR recognition, is significant."

"The product is easy to use."

"ROI is definitely present with OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web; these are very capable tools, and there is no reason ROI should be a challenge."

"It is a complete solution for mobile application testing."

"For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is virtualization."

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web pros

"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."

"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."

"Object identification is good."

"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."

"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 solution is stable."

"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."

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

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

"The product's object detection method needs to be improved since it can help testers do perfect testing."

"We like to host the tools centrally. We would need them to be multi-tenants, so different projects could log on and have their own set of devices and their own set of apps, and they wouldn't see data from other projects that are using it."

"They should introduce a pay-per-use subscription model."

"We need to scale devices easily. Some customers would like to loop in AWS or other cloud providers to check if their devices have the cloud factor. OpenText UFT Digital Lab needs to improve it."

"For the most part, the key challenge is ensuring that customers fully utilize the product as intended and adopt the appropriate frameworks to implement the solutions effectively."

"The documentation and user interface both need improvement."

"Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on."

"I would like to see more integration with automation tools."

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web cons

"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."

"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."

"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."

More Ranorex Studio cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product could be more affordable."

"While the pricing may seem relatively high, when compared to competitors, it often falls in line or can even be more cost-effective."

"OpenText UFT Digital Lab's pricing is average, and I rate it a five out of ten."

"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."

"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."

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

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

"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)."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Non Profit

10%

Performing Arts

Manufacturing Company

16%

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	13

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	14
Midsize Enterprise	13
Large Enterprise	23

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

For automation testing, the tool provides the record and playback option, which helps with object detection easily.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

Digital Lab is a pretty solid product with areas that could be continuously improved on.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT Mobile?

I deal with OpenText Analysis Database and Core Performance Engineering, which are categories of software rather than individual pieces. We focus on the ADM area, which includes ALM, UFT One, UFT D...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Sauce Labs vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 13% of the time

Perfecto vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 9% of the time

Appium vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 8% of the time

ReadyAPI vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 8% of the time

TestObject vs OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

Compared 4% of the time

More OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 20% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 16% of the time

Qt Squish vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 11% of the time

Eggplant Test vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 8% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 7% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web

January 2026

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web report

Download OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

January 2026

Download Ranorex Studio product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Digital Lab, Micro Focus UFT Mobile, Mobile Center, Micro Focus Mobile Center, HPE Mobile Center

No data available

Overview

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web offers integration with HPE and non-HPE tools, real device testing, and device management. It supports real-time analytics and multi-platform testing, ensuring traceability and flexibility with decentralized devices.

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web is designed to enhance testing efficiency for mobile and desktop applications by allowing ease of integration with different testing environments. It features real-time analytics, supports automated device management, and provides the flexibility of decentralized testing on real devices. With a focus on robust traceability, it stands out as a comprehensive choice for optimizing software development life cycles, especially notable for its ability to support multiple devices simultaneously and strategic scaling through network virtualization and AWS device farm.

What are the key features of OpenText Functional Testing Lab?

Ease of Use: Intuitive interface facilitating user engagement.
Integration: Compatible with HPE and non-HPE tools for improved workflow.
Real Device Testing: Ensures testing on actual devices for accurate results.
Automation: Advanced capabilities streamline repetitive testing.
Device Management: Flexible management of decentralized devices.
Multi-Platform Support: Simultaneous testing across various platforms.
Traceability: Strong application delivery traceability for robust tracking.

What benefits should users look for in reviews?

Scalability: Ability to handle multiple devices and scale as needed.
Flexibility: Deployment options include both on-premises and cloud-based solutions.
Real-Time Analytics: Provides actionable insights for data-driven decisions.
Enhanced Performance: Optimizes the software development lifecycle.
Comprehensive Testing: Facilitates thorough functional and performance testing.

Financial services companies utilize OpenText Functional Testing Lab for optimizing mobile solutions and applications, ensuring a streamlined integration into their Application Lifecycle Management and Unified Functional Testing processes. It aids in functional and performance testing, adapting to both on-premises and cloud deployments to suit industry-specific demands.

OpenText

Ranorex is a leading software development company that offers innovative test automation software. Ranorex makes testing easy, saves time in the testing process and empowers clients to ensure the highest quality of their products. Its flexible tools and quick ROI make it the ideal choice for companies of virtually any size – and this is why thousands of clients in over 60 countries trust in its excellence.

Ranorex

Sample Customers

Bci, BPER Services, Die Mobiliar, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, HPE, Independent Health, Shanghai OnStar Telematics, Pick n Pay, UCB

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Ranorex Studio

January 2026

Free Report: OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Ranorex Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs. Ranorex Studio report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing 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.