Ranorex Studio vs. Tricentis qTest

Personally I rate it a 10 from my own experience, but from a company perspective, I would drop that to perhaps an 8. This is because while I have fun while finding it extremely easy to use and comprehensive enough, there have been times that relative to the project currently in works, Ranorex has not performed due to its shortcomings. If asked though I would certainly fully recommend Ranorex to a potential user, especially to someone less skilled in this field.

Incentivized

The qTest is well-suited for organizations transitioning to Agile or DevOps frameworks. It Streamlines test management with real-time collaboration and integrates with popular CI/CD tools. It excels in complex, large-scale projects needing centralized test cases management, traceability, and detailed reporting. However, organizations on a tight budget might find it cost prohibitive compared to simpler, low-cost alternatives.

Incentivized

• Initial setup.
• User guide.
• Getting money from customers.

• Highly customizable: we were able to organize our test cases in unique ways that made our work easier.
• Connectivity with Jira: being able to pull requirements information in from Jira was a big point for us.
• Standalone tool: Being a standalone tool on a dedicated server, we were able to have access to our tests regardless of whether our Jira server was down.

Incentivized

• Language support is limited, c# and Vb.net only if i remember correctly compared to other tools which allow many more. This addition would certainly be appreciated if added on in a company like mine with a variety of differently skilled individuals
• Paid license. This is not always preferred. A free version without a limited trial but maybe limited features would be appreciated.

Incentivized

• In requirements , we can't add multiple test cases at once, or search multiple cases at once, need to do one by one. Here actually qtest needs to improve.
• Linking cloud hosted qtest and on-premise TOSCA is very difficult especially when you are working with client system with security wall. It requires tunnelling software which is not recommended.

Incentivized

This has been a core QA management tool for our organization and integrates well with our other SDLC platforms (Azure DevOps/Jira/Katalon).

Incentivized

qTest is actually intuitive and user-friendly, despite my other scathing review aspects

Incentivized

I suppose my experience is sort of mixed. Help documents are substantially helpful. I personally have not got the quickest responses from Ranorex support but at the same time, they are pretty good with updating their users frequently with info about their product/s and features. The community is really where I find support and I suppose that could look to be an extension of the product itself.

Incentivized

The actual answer is 0. I have never experienced worse support, whether personal or professional

Incentivized

Again, supporting documentation could have been a lot better

Incentivized

We have used Selenium as well. This has picked up more steam than Ranorex if i have to be honest.

Incentivized

Extensive integration options with various third-party tools, enabling seamless integration into existing workflows. Allows for flexibility and customization of workflows, fields, and permissions to adapt to unique testing requirements. Supports robust requirements traceability, ensuring comprehensive test coverage. Lastly management decisions too

Incentivized

• We were left without a working solution so the whole project had to been stopped.

• Better organization and centralization of test cases has led to more cohesive team collaboration
• Speed to delivery, deployments to production, are mostly maintained
• Performance issues have led to testing delays requiring the team to switch to other methods which contributed to QA bottleneck issues and sometimes even missed sprint commitments

Incentivized