CrossBrowserTesting vs Ranorex Studio comparison

SmartBear and Ranorex are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while Ranorex is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.5. SmartBear holds a 0.7% mindshare in FT, compared to Ranorex’s 3.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Ranorex users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Ranorex Studio

Read 46 Ranorex Studio reviews

2,112 Views
1,566 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranorex Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Ranorex Studio and CrossBrowserTesting compete in the software testing domain. Ranorex Studio generally holds the upper hand in automation capabilities and robust setup, while CrossBrowserTesting is favored for its extensive browser compatibility.

Features: Ranorex Studio includes automated functional UI testing through drag-and-drop technology, supports desktop, web, and mobile testing in an integrated environment, and excels in automation toolsets. CrossBrowserTesting offers real browser testing across varied platforms, a vast selection of devices, operating systems, and browser combinations.

Room for Improvement: Ranorex Studio could benefit from enhanced integration with cloud platforms, more dynamic reporting features, and improved support for cross-technology applications. CrossBrowserTesting could offer better diagnostic tools, enhanced speed for launching test sessions, and more detailed analytical reporting.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Ranorex Studio offers straightforward local installation and solid support channels with comprehensive documentation and forums. CrossBrowserTesting, being cloud-based, allows easy access and real-time support, benefiting from continuous updates for flexibility but might require more personalized customer interaction.

Pricing and ROI: Ranorex Studio requires an upfront license investment with strong ROI due to its comprehensive features. CrossBrowserTesting employs a subscription model, offering scalability and reducing initial costs. While cost-effective, its long-term ROI may not match Ranorex's capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. Ranorex Studio Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Ranorex Studio

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 847,959 peers since 2012

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

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

28th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Ranorex Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

14th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Testing Tools (4th), Regression Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.7%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.6%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

Read full review

Aws V

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."

"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."

"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."

"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."

"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."

"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."

"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."

"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."

"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."

"Object identification is good."

"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."

"The solution is stable."

"I'm from a UFT background, so Ranorex Studio has a similar feel in terms of how it handles objects. It just felt familiar even though I'd never seen it before. However, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of UFT, but it's a pretty good start, and it's cost-effective."

More Ranorex Studio pros

Cons

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

"Sometimes the testing is slow."

"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."

"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"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."

"When Ranorex is upgraded, the compatibility with other projects, in version control, in-house or on-premise, fails on occasion. However, overall, the stability is good."

"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."

"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."

"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."

"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."

"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."

"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."

More Ranorex Studio cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."

"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."

"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."

"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."

"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)."

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

24%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

11%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Ranorex Studio?

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.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ranorex Studio?

I'd rate it around five out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, not too cheap but not overly pricey.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 68% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 19% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 13% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 23% of the time

Qt Squish vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 15% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 14% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs Ranorex Studio

Compared 7% of the time

More Ranorex Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Ranorex Studio

March 2025

Download Ranorex Studio product report

Overview

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.

SmartBear

Ranorex is a leading software development company that offers innovative test automation software. Ranorex makes testing easy, saves time in the testing process and empowers clients to ensure the highest quality of their products. Its flexible tools and quick ROI make it the ideal choice for companies of virtually any size – and this is why thousands of clients in over 60 countries trust in its excellence.

Ranorex

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Ranorex Studio

April 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Ranorex Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Ranorex Studio report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing 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.