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

Ranorex Studio vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
16th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (12th)
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
108
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.7%, up from 3.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.6%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
LokeshYadav - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation
I've also worked with Micro Focus. I'm working with Micro Focus, however, for that part, I'm working on the mainframe - although I've done some web testing using Micro Focus on a website. Otherwise, I found Selenium to be easier, and simpler to use than Micro Focus when it comes to the web. A lot of support online is available. A lot of forums, and communities are there. For Micro Focus, the part where you identify objects on a webpage, that part is pretty simple on Selenium. You can use XPath or CSS or IDE or anything, and it works fine. Yet with Micro Focus, the web part, I found it a little tedious to work with. Selenium is much easier in that sense on the web part.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"The solution is stable."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"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."
"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."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"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."
"The stability of the solution has been good, it is reliable we have not had any bugs."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are that it is free and allows using any programming language."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"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."
"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."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"The login could be improved, to obviate the need for relying on another one for integration with Selenium HQ"
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"There is a challenge with concurrent testing, where parallelization is not fully supported."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"The solution is open-source, so it is 100% free with no hidden charges."
"Selenium is free software so we do not pay licensing costs."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"The solution is open source."
"Selenium HQ costs around $1000 per month, which is a bit high based on what they're offering."
"It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
"It is all free."
"It is free to use."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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.
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.
What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?
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 languag...
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 do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Selenium HQ?
As an open-source tool, Selenium does not have direct costs, but coding can be money-intensive because it is challenging.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
SeleniumHQ
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

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: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.