In the evolving landscape of test automation, Leapwork and Ranorex Studio stand out as prominent solutions. Leapwork is a no-code automation platform leveraging AI, designed for ease of use across various industries, with a focus on visual workflows and extensive support resources.
Conversely, Ranorex Studio offers a comprehensive suite for UI test automation with computer vision capabilities, suitable for web, mobile, and desktop platforms, while still supporting no-code test creation. This article compares these tools, detailing their unique features and practical applications to help you decide the best fit for your automation needs.
Latest update: 1/9/2024, 5:35:10 PM
We do not guarantee the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information presented on our website. This includes prices, product specifications, and availability, which are subject to change. The reviews on this site are collected from g2.com and crozdesk.com and summarized by us.
Feature comparison of Leapwork and Ranorex Studio
|Uses Computer Vision
|Ease Of Use
|very easy to learn
|easy to learn
|Is Open Source
– Comprehensive data storage abilities without being locked into a single solution.
– Excellent support with timely solutions upon request.
– Ease of use in creating subflows for reusable tasks, which benefits non-technical testers.
– Enables manual testers to create automation without extensive coding knowledge.
– GUI-based platform that is easy to learn with a supportive knowledge base.
– No technical prerequisites required for use.
– In-depth strategy editor that supports web, desktop, and API automation.
– Seamless integration of test cases involving both desktop and web applications.
– Video export feature of executed test cases for documentation and training.
– Excellent debugging functionality, including live video execution and video recording.
– Ranorex Spy tool is effective for identifying and locating XPath, providing an edge over some other automation tools.
– Enables creation of stable automation scripts that are less affected by updates compared to tools like Selenium.
– Powerful tool that can cover almost all types of desktop applications.
– Provides the flexibility to implement code using Ranorex API as well as within Ranorex Studio.
– Offers support for automation of web and mobile applications in addition to desktop apps.
– Ranorex can be cost-effective if the infrastructure and approach are optimized.
– Features easy click and recording capabilities for actions of the tested application.
– Provides a variety of free online training sessions for all experience levels and helpful support.
– Facilitates the transition from manual to automated testing, potentially increasing test coverage and efficiency.
– Simplifies test creation, especially for those with less programming knowledge, and supports cross-browser testing.
– Minor user interface issues, such as watermarks not disappearing when typing.
– Lack of check-in control in the Platform version compared to the Enterprise version.
– Reporting features could be enhanced, such as email reports and dashboard improvements.
– Identifying some web elements can be counterintuitive and may require advanced knowledge.
– Mobile automation not built-in; reliance on third-party providers or tools is necessary.
– Test execution can be slow when using remote agents.
– Limited functionality for executing sub-flows compared to main flows.
– Data-driven test automation from Excel is not dynamic and could be improved.
– Limited Excel integration with only basic Read and Write blocks available.
– Still an on-premises tool; could benefit from being cloud-based with automated backups and disaster recovery.
– Ranorex only supports C and is limited to Windows, lacking support for Mac OS.
– Some users experience difficulties when recording actions on applications using multiple technologies.
– Some users report receiving no tangible benefits from using Ranorex in certain scenarios.
– The cost of Ranorex can be high, which may be a barrier for smaller teams or businesses.
– Users have reported experiencing persistent bugs and issues within the system over the years.
– Communication with support has been challenging for some users, with difficulties in resolving issues.
– Sales representative turnover can lead to inconsistencies in customer service.
– Reporting functionality in Ranorex is criticized for not scaling well with larger tests.
– While Ranorex is flexible, some users feel that this flexibility is necessary to work around its shortcomings.
– Compatibility with all desired technologies should be thoroughly tested, as some users have found limitations in Ranorex’s ability to interact with certain elements.
Pricing Overview: Leapwork vs. Ranorex Studio
Leapwork Pricing Description
Leapwork Test Automation provides a customizable pricing model that is tailored to fit the unique needs of different businesses and teams. The company does not offer a standard pricing plan; instead, it opts for a personalized approach. Potential customers must reach out to Leapwork’s sales team to discuss their specific requirements and receive a quote that reflects their business goals and team structure. This method ensures that organizations are not constrained by a generic pricing structure but have a solution that aligns closely with their operational dynamics.
Ranorex Studio Pricing Description
Ranorex Studio, on the other hand, employs an all-inclusive licensing model with three distinct license types: Studio, Enterprise, and Runtime. The Studio license is designed for individual use on a single physical machine and includes test creation, editing, execution, and integration capabilities. The Enterprise license offers all the features of the Studio license but with the added flexibility of a floating license that can be shared across multiple machines, both physical and virtual. The Runtime license is also a floating type intended for executing tests on several machines but does not include test creation capabilities. Ranorex emphasizes its comprehensive support and features for various testing methodologies and platforms. Similar to Leapwork, Ranorex encourages direct contact with their sales team for tailored pricing information.
Comparison of Pricing Models
- Personalized Pricing: Both Leapwork and Ranorex Studio require potential customers to engage with their sales teams directly to obtain specific pricing information tailored to their needs.
- Tailored Solutions: Each company emphasizes providing solutions that are customized to the customer’s business objectives and operational requirements.
- License Types: Ranorex Studio offers three predefined license types with specific use cases and features, while Leapwork does not publicly define different license categories.
- Flexibility: Ranorex Studio’s Enterprise and Runtime licenses offer the flexibility of a floating license system, allowing for use across multiple machines, which is not explicitly stated in Leapwork’s model.
- Test Creation vs. Execution: Ranorex differentiates between licenses that allow for test creation and those that are solely for test execution, a distinction not made clear in Leapwork’s description.
- All-Inclusive vs. Customizable: Ranorex positions its model as all-inclusive, suggesting a comprehensive suite of features within each license type. Leapwork’s model is highly customizable, potentially offering a more granular approach to feature availability and pricing.
- Support and Features: Ranorex explicitly outlines its support services and testing features within its pricing model, whereas Leapwork focuses more on the adaptability of their pricing to team dynamics without detailing specific features.
In summary, Ranorex Studio provides a more structured pricing strategy with defined license types catering to various testing scenarios, while Leapwork opts for a highly flexible and customizable pricing approach. Potential users seeking a tailored solution with a focus on team dynamics may prefer Leapwork, whereas those looking for a clear, tiered licensing system with specific feature sets might lean towards Ranorex Studio. Understanding the key differences in these pricing models is essential for organizations to select the product that best fits their testing requirements and budgetary constraints.