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
3rd
Ranking in Mobile App Testing Tools
2nd
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
7th
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 October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 8.5%, up from 8.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.4%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing8.5%
Ranorex Studio3.4%
Other88.1%
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 production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The best features of OpenText Functional Testing include descriptive programming, the ability to add objects in the repository, and its ease of use for UI compared to other tools."
"For the QTP/UFT projects I have worked on ROI is always over 300% in the long term."
"Since I started, we invested in UFT and automation and we have significantly reduced our release cycle time."
"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"The most valuable features are the API testing, the integration with DevOps and accessibility to people without a lot of technical skill."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"Based on my experience, this would be my tool of choice for test automation."
"Ranorex improved our ui automation by providing handy features such as WaitForExists, Exists, Enabled, Visible"
"It's easy to use the test suite and add test cases to do our product bug fixes, and software pre-release regression tests, and continuous Integration testing with Jenkins CI tool for each software build test."
"Overall, it's a good product."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is stable."
 

Cons

"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization."
"Because of SAP, I would rate the stability a five out of ten."
"Unfortunately, the issue was not resolved. I was told that the answer from the Micro Focus support team was not helpful."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"[Tech support is] not a 10 because what happens with some of our issues is that we might not get a patch quickly and we have to hold on to an application until we get a proper solution."
"It needs better compatibility with Chrome and Safari, which would lead to this being a better product."
"The user interface could be improved"
"Any minor change to a repository can result in a version control system nightmare, making it more difficult when working in teams."
"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."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"With the new version of Chrome, some objects are identified differently, so we need to identify those and fix the x-path of the object."
"Running the tool in a distributed environment was a challenge since Ranorex requires an active user session."
"I would definitely say that the existing documentation of their API has a lot of room for improvement."
"Need support for other operating systems like Mac and Linux, and not just Windows."
"The compatibility with different browsers needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"Compared to other products, the solution is very expensive."
"It's an expensive solution."
"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."
"Its price is reasonable compared to other vendors."
"It took about five years to break even. UFT is costly."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
"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."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"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)."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,403 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
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

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.
917,403 professionals have used our research since 2012.