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 fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is stable."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"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 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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"The product is quite stable."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
 

Cons

"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."
"Part of the challenge is that Ranorex's support is over in Europe, so we can't get responses on the same day. If we had support in the United States that was a bit more timely, that would be helpful."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"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."
"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)."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"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."
"The solution could be improved regarding communication with browsers, as it is slower and a bit tricky compared to other frameworks. However, with the latest changes involving BiDirectional communication, it is becoming a top choice in automation frameworks."
"Selenium could offer better ways to record and create scripts. IDE is available, however, it can be improved."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"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)."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"It is free."
"Selenium HQ is open source and our use of it in our company is provided for free."
"The product is open-source and free."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"There is no pricing cost. License is Apache License 2.0."
"Since it is an open source. It is free to use. However my company see it as the future of load testing."
"Selenium is an open-source solution, and It's free."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
882,032 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%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
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.
882,032 professionals have used our research since 2012.