No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Functional Testing vs Ranorex Studio comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
2nd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (2nd)
Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
17th
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
8th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.7%, up from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.3%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.7%
Ranorex Studio3.3%
Other88.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Q&A Highlights

Aug 24, 2016
 

Featured Reviews

Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.
Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"The scalability of Micro Focus UFT One is good."
"We wouldn't be able to conduct tests or to carry out work without this solution."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"Since I started, we invested in UFT and automation and we have significantly reduced our release cycle time."
"I was able to reduce regression and functional test times by 80%."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"For us, object recording is the most valuable and most used feature."
"Easy to use - without any dev skills you can automate some nice things C# or VB.NET is used for development, and you can find a lot of information online Fast email support and a forum with several experienced users and Ranorex employees on it Online webinars to help you get started We can combine Ranorex with Jenkins and JIRA."
"I implemented this tool for several of my customers and I can see the ROI right away."
"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."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining, and you don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"In this particular area Ranorex proved to be a perfect choice."
"We tried several, and we chose Ranorex for its ability to cover large amounts of testing with minimal coding."
"Customer Service: Ranorex’s customer service is outstanding."
"We have automated 15+ internal applications for our client, which reduced much manual effort on regression testing."
 

Cons

"In cases of longer tests (in forms of so-called Mega Scripts), there can be a seriously huge usage of virtual memory by UFT that can lead to SystemOutOfMemory exceptions which are showstoppers and a huge annoyance."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"Because of SAP, I would rate the stability a five out of ten."
"There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"HP has a policy that software updates for the QTP/UFT products are only available to licensed users with a service agreement. However this policy extends beyond version upgrades to software patches, and the problem this poses is that any potential customer that downloads the tool for use with a 30-day trial license must work with an unpatched version that is often less stable than the patched version in use by licensed long-term customers."
"More possibilities on mobile devices, as we have already encountered some problems with iFrames integrated in a web page."
"They need to improve their support of different web browsers along with Flash support."
"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 would definitely say that the existing documentation of their API has a lot of room for improvement."
"We are mainly working for manufacturing OEMs but the integration is not available."
"The compatibility with different browsers needs to be improved."
"Need support for other operating systems like Mac and Linux, and not just Windows."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing cost is high. There are no additional costs to the standard license."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The price is only $3,000. I don't know how many QA analysts you would have in any given company. Probably no more than five or 10. So if it's a large corporation, it can easily afford $15,000 to $25,000. I don't see that being an issue."
"The price is reasonable."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"The pricing of the product is an issue."
"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)."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

Aug 24, 2016
Aug 24, 2016
Thanks all, it's encouraging to see so much support and responses
2 out of 16 answers
it_user83412 - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
Aug 23, 2016
All of these solutions are based on scripts and face the associated limitations. Test data management, parameterization, dynamic TBOMs, BPCA, SolMan integration and script maintenance all pose potential issues. I'd recommend looking at Tricentis Tosca or Worksoft, both of which provide scriptless automation for SAP GUI. Tosca also supports Fiori and NWBC natively as well as over 30 different UI and API technologies. [FULL DISCLOSURE: I work for Tricentis, so obviously biased, but we serve many SAP clients]
it_user457878 - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Aug 23, 2016
UFT will support or Tricentis TOSCA .
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

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...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Functional Testing vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.