OpenText UFT One vs. Ranorex Studio

UFT is well suited if the price is not an issue, and if the requirement is about testing different technologies. If the application is based on Legacy platforms like Siebel or Mainframe, UFT fares quite well. For low cost web-based projects, there are other cheap and open source tools available. If it is about API testing or Mobile Testing, it is better to use other tools like TOSCA.

Incentivized

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 simple front end will allow novice users to easily grasp the basics of automation and give them confidence to try things for themselves.
• UFT can scale up and run across multiple machines from a single controller, such as ALM, enabling hundreds of tests to be executed overnight.
• There is an active support community out there, both official HPE based and independent users. This means if you do encounter a problem there is always someone out there to help you.
• The later versions have many add-ins to plug in to other tools within the QA world.
• Expert users are able to utilise the many native functions and also build their own to get the most out of the tool and impress people as they walk past and see the magic happening on the screen.
• UFT also has LeanFT bundled with it, allowing automated testing at the api level - if you can convince the developers to let you in there.

Incentivized

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

• Its licensing cost is very high making it a very expensive tool. due to this many organisations are exploring options of license free tools like Selenium for automation. Though learning curve is large in case of Selenium but it is very cost effective & you an get lot of support online for Selenium.
• Though the scripting time is less since its easy to create automation scripts, the execution time is relatively higher as it takes the lot of CPU & RAM.
• Though UFT is quite stable but during long execution cycles we do get frequent browser crashing issues.
• In terms of costing TestComplete is also one option which is not free but comes with modular pricing. You can buy what you need, when you need.

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

HPE are quick to reply and it's possible to get through to the actual developers shuold the case warrent it. Their online system allows updates and tracking of all incedents raised.

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

1. It works solid for automate SAP and S/4 Hana applications and Fiori too. 2. Teams are well versed about UFT One 3. Able to handle maintained execution results 4. Publish Automation execution results in well manner to the leadership team/stake holders 5. More help content available 6. Able to understand non technical resources about normal view.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Reduces the total workload of keeping the team to test older (regression) functionality. QA testers can concentrate on ad-hoc and exploratory testing, saving time and effort across the entire project.
• Has built a better infrastructure for the client applications on which we can rely on for stability and providing regression results for any new features being developed.
• Led the applications a step closer to implementing agile practices and DevOps across the entire organization. Thus, providing a better turnaround time of new features to the customers and less maintenance headaches for the BAU team to address.

Incentivized

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