OpenText UFT Developer vs Ranorex Studio comparison

OpenText and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. OpenText is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.8, while Ranorex is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.5. OpenText holds a 2.6% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.5% mindshare. Additionally, 77% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

OpenText UFT Developer

Read 38 OpenText UFT Developer reviews

1,786 Views
1,239 Comparison Views

77% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

2,048 Views
1,527 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

OpenText UFT Developer

Ranorex Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

OpenText UFT Developer and Ranorex Studio compete in the software testing tools market, focusing on automation across various environments. OpenText UFT Developer has an edge with its integration abilities, particularly beneficial in complex development cycles.

Features: OpenText UFT Developer is known for its versatility and seamless integration with tools like ALM and Jenkins. It supports various programming languages, allowing developers to use Java and C#, making it highly adaptable to different testing environments. Its developer-friendly interface facilitates smooth integration into the development lifecycle. Ranorex Studio is appreciated for its ease of use and strong automation capabilities across desktop, web, and mobile applications. It supports C# and VB.NET, known for its strong object recognition and detailed reporting features, enhancing testing efficiency.

Room for Improvement: OpenText UFT Developer needs enhanced cross-browser testing capabilities and better support for open-source frameworks. Performance improvements and integration with newer testing frameworks are also required. Ranorex Studio could improve its browser compatibility and support for non-Windows environments. It should also focus on enhancing object recognition in complex UIs and expanding overall language support.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Both OpenText UFT Developer and Ranorex Studio offer on-premises deployment options, with cloud alternatives available. Technical support for OpenText UFT Developer varies, with some users citing slow response times. Ranorex Studio's technical support is generally well-regarded, though some users have specific unmet needs in their service experience.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText UFT Developer is viewed as an expensive solution suitable for larger organizations with bigger budgets, given its costly per-user license. However, its capabilities can justify the investment across testing teams. Ranorex Studio also has a high price point but is considered appropriate for its offered features, with flexible licensing options like floating licenses. Both tools offer significant returns on investment through increased automation efficiency when widely adopted within an organization.

To learn more, read our detailed OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 851,604 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 UFT Developer

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

12th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

11th

Average Rating

7.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

14th

Ranking in Test Automation Tools

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (7th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT Developer is 2.6%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.5%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Eitan Gold

SQA Manager at Elmo Motion Control Ltd.

User-friendly integration with support for Visual Studio enhances GUI testing capabilities

OpenText UFT Developer ( /products/opentext-uft-developer-reviews ) is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio. The support is excellent. It is easy to implement tests with OpenText UFT Developer. We primarily use it for GUI testing and testing web applications with another application. This is the main usage for us. We also integrate it with the N-unit Framework ( /products/framework-reviews ), and they work well together.

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

"In UFT, it's a simple click to insert the checkpoints."

"It is quite stable, and it has got very user-friendly features, which are important in terms of maintaining our scripts from a long-term perspective. It is very stable for desktop-based, UI-based, and mobile applications. Object repositories and other features are also quite good."

"The solution is very scalable."

"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."

"I like the tool because we can still access the devices' distance. It's not important where you're working. For example, I can use it in Brazil, Chile, and other parts where people are working. After the pandemic, many companies use it for homework. I think using it to administer and manage the devices is very good and effective."

"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."

"The most valuable features are the object repository."

"OpenText UFT Developer is user-friendly and integrates well with Visual Studio."

More OpenText UFT Developer pros

"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."

"The solution is stable."

"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."

"Object identification is good."

"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 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."

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

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

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

"We push one button and the tests are completely executed at once, so just have to analyze and say it's okay. It would be nice if this could be entirely automated."

"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."

"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."

"Stability depends on the company's infrastructure and end-to-end infrastructure. When I used the tool in my project, we had a big problem with many users using it simultaneously."

"It's now too heavy and they should be making it faster. We do an attempt at automatic regression testing. We schedule a test to start at a certain time. It takes a lot of time to download the resources and start UFT. Competitors in this area have tools that start faster and run the test faster. For example, if the test at our side will take 10 minutes, another tool will do that in one minute."

"There's room for improvement, especially when I compare OpenText to newer tools like NeoLoad."

"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."

"The pricing could be improved."

More OpenText UFT Developer cons

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."

"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."

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

"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 price of the solution could be lowered. The cost is approximately $25 per year for a subscription-based license."

"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."

"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."

"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."

"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."

"It is quite expensive and is priced per seat or in concurrent (or floating) licenses over a period of months."

"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."

"If I would rate it with one being inexpensive and ten being expensive, I would rate pricing an eight out of ten."

More OpenText UFT Developer pricing and cost advice

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

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

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

"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."

"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)."

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

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

851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

20%

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT Developer?

There are many good things. Like it is intuitive and scripting was easy. Plus the availability of experienced resources in India due to its market leadership.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus UFT Developer?

The price of OpenText UFT Developer is a bit higher than expected, but there are no better tools available for a valid comparison.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT Developer?

In some cases, object recognition is not 100%, and a customized solution is necessary. This limits the technology's ability to recognize every object.

See all answers

What do you like most about Ranorex Studio?

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ranorex Studio?

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

See all answers

What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?

See all answers

Comparisons

OpenText UFT One vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 57% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 19% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 4% of the time

IBM DevOps Test UI vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

Eggplant Test vs OpenText UFT Developer

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText UFT Developer Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 24% of the time

Qt Squish vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 14% of the time

Telerik Test Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 1% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer

May 2025

Download OpenText UFT Developer product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

May 2025

Download Ranorex Studio product report

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT Developer, UFT Pro (LeanFT), Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT), LeanFT, HPE LeanFT

No data available

Overview

With OpenText UFT Developer, you get object identification tools, parallel testing, and record/replay capabilities.

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

Walmart, Hitachi, American Airlines, PepsiCo, AT&T, Ericsson, United Airlines

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

Buyer's Guide

OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio

May 2025

Free Report: OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Ranorex Studio report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation 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.