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

"Object identification is good."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"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 most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"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."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"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."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
 

Cons

"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"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."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"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 solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"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."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
 

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."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"This product is open source and free. That was a huge deciding factor for us getting into it."
"I have been using the open-source version."
"Since it is an open source. It is free to use. However my company see it as the future of load testing."
"It is an open-source solution."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"We are satisfied with the pricing."
"Selenium is open-source."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
882,886 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
11%
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.
882,886 professionals have used our research since 2012.