Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Ranorex Studio vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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

Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (15th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.4%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 3.3%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Selenium HQ3.3%
Ranorex Studio3.4%
Other93.3%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Sujata Sujata Ghadage - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Manager consultant - Digital assurance Services at adrosonic
Automation in testing processes sees improvement with multi-browser support and easier website interactions
Selenium HQ could improve by including a robust reporting framework, eliminating the need for external frameworks. The tool could simplify object identification, enabling users to generate XPaths without requiring detailed DOM understanding. Additionally, an automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is stable."
"Object identification is good."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is the capture and replay tool. You don't need to do script testing. When you launch any application from Ranorex Studio it automatically captures these test case steps. The next time you can replay the tool the flow automatically happens again. For example, when you do the logging and all the activity will be captured by the tool, and re-execute the same step by using automatization."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"I believe Selenium HQ to be the best solution in the market for automating web applications"
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
 

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."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"I would like to be able to customize the data grids. They are currently written in Visual Basic and we are unable to get down to the cell level without hard-code."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"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 most significant issue with Selenium is its difficulty in adapting to changing locators, which can hinder testing."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"It would be very helpful to be able to write scripts in a GUI, rather than depend so heavily on the command line."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"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."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"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)."
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"It is all free."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
"Selenium is free software so we do not pay licensing costs."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
882,594 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise23
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise33
Large Enterprise51
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
I will give an eight for my satisfaction with the pricing and licensing costs of Selenium HQ.
What needs improvement with Selenium HQ?
Some improvements can be implemented as compared to Playwright, which is why I rate it seven out of ten.
 

Also Known As

No data available
SeleniumHQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about Ranorex Studio vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
882,594 professionals have used our research since 2012.