We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and Selenium HQ 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.
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"It is a good automation tool."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"The tool is easy to use and log in with respect to other tools. It is open-source. We can customize the product. I also like its security."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"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."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"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."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and Eggplant Test, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText UFT One. See our Ranorex Studio vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.
