We performed a comparison between Perfecto and Ranorex Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In terms of cross-platform testing, they offer all of it, every device available in the market. It covers real scenarios that mimic production so that we don't miss out on any devices that our clients might be using to run the applications we develop. It's been great and very helpful."
"In terms of Perfecto's ability to perform cross-platform testing, I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"The automated test reporting functionality is the most valuable feature. We use the CI Dashboard. It's very important as it is the main reporting tool for our automated tests."
"We are continuously doing testing on different environments, devices, and platforms. It executes seamlessly on multiple devices without having any connectivity issues. It has been really helpful for us to test on cloud devices."
"One of the good things about Perfecto is the scalability that it provides."
"The quality of our software has improved since we implemented this solution."
"It saves on the cost and effort of having to maintain our own virtual testing environment. Even our onshore team is not in the city that we work in, so that helps a lot. Even if we didn't invest a lot in getting multiple devices, having to share those devices would become a hassle."
"The automation piece is the most valuable feature. Every time we had a new version of either OS or an application, we found that being able to automate the testing across different devices is very valuable."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"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 like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The solution is stable."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"It would be ideal if there was a complete integration with other test management tools and other applications like HPLM, Micro Focus, or Microsoft Azure."
"There was a discussion about having the capability to export the test results to a certain tool that we use in our project. If that were added it would be great not having to manually take screenshots, put them in a document, and share them on the different test management tools."
"Previously, we used the cradle. Every time the mobile was blocking it, we would have to ask Perfecto to provide another one. That took a lot of time away from us."
"When using devices on the cloud, it lags quite a bit at times. I know that these are real devices that are being projected on our laptop screens and monitors, but if the speed could be improved, that would be good."
"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances. We have been working on a JIRA integration with Perfecto—and I'm extremely impressed that they have that—but at this time they're not supporting onsite JIRA instances, which is what we have."
"It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved."
"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."
"We have had some issues with performance, which is something that should be improved."
"When we have updated the solution in the past there have been issues with the libraries. They need to make it clear that the libraries need to be upgraded too."
"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."
"I'd like to know their testing strategies and to know what they can automate and what they can't. It can become pretty frustrating if you're trying to automate something that changes on a monthly or weekly basis."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"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."
"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."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
Perfecto is ranked 3rd in Functional Testing Tools with 23 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. Perfecto is rated 8.4, while Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Perfecto writes "Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". Perfecto is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, Appium, AWS Device Farm and HeadSpin, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One. See our Perfecto vs. Ranorex Studio report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.
