No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Ranorex Studio vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 5, 2026

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
17th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (8th)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 4.1%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.3%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SmartBear TestComplete5.3%
Ranorex Studio4.1%
Other90.6%
Test Automation Tools
 

Q&A Highlights

Aug 24, 2016
 

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.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Test Lead at Emerson
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We tried using HP QTP and Selenium, but opted for Ranorex because of its reasonable price and the ease of use of the automation tool."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"We went with Ranorex due to its relative ease of use, and its support for automating desktop/WPF applications out of the box."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"Dynamically changing application or a desktop application which is challenging to automate, blindly go for Ranorex."
"The most valuable features of this solution are object recognition and the fact that you can memorize the objects."
"My advice for anybody who is considering Ranorex is that it is a powerful tool, it is far-reaching, and it works as advertised."
"With a small team of one onshore person and three offshore people, I was able to show the value of $90,000 savings for a project as a POC and the customer is currently using this tool for several other projects in their organization after seeing the ROI for one project."
"With TestComplete, we need just eight hours (or even less if we're using multiple machines) for stability and stress testing, whereas manual tests would take 48 hours."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"Object spy and object recognition are working very well, giving us a lot of possibilities."
"For more than a year, I've been working on automation of functional testing and regression testing using TestComplete, and it is a great tool even though it is hard to learn and use."
"I changed because I did not have any solutions as close to the real thing as this."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"With TestComplete, I can discover bugs faster and easier than testing manually."
 

Cons

"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"While the product does well with its primary job of testing, when we are using Ranorex it would be nice if it would report directly in HTML."
"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."
"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."
"More possibilities on mobile devices, as we have already encountered some problems with iFrames integrated in a web page."
"I would like to see Ranorex come up with a load balancing tool for test execution."
"They should have support for other OS’s, aside from only supporting Windows."
"I think it still needs to improve a lot."
"I can sense there's still a little bit more room for improvement in terms of making the whole testing process easier."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The integration tools could be better."
"Often crashes with large projects. File check-in takes too much time in TFS."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"Implementation of screen recording during testing (video recording)."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
 

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)."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"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 solution's pricing is too high."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"It comes with a high cost."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
912,788 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

Aug 24, 2016
Aug 24, 2016
Thanks all, it's encouraging to see so much support and responses
2 out of 16 answers
it_user83412 - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President at a tech vendor with 201-500 employees
Aug 23, 2016
All of these solutions are based on scripts and face the associated limitations. Test data management, parameterization, dynamic TBOMs, BPCA, SolMan integration and script maintenance all pose potential issues. I'd recommend looking at Tricentis Tosca or Worksoft, both of which provide scriptless automation for SAP GUI. Tosca also supports Fiori and NWBC natively as well as over 30 different UI and API technologies. [FULL DISCLOSURE: I work for Tricentis, so obviously biased, but we serve many SAP clients]
it_user457878 - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Aug 23, 2016
UFT will support or Tricentis TOSCA .
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
10%
 

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 Business23
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise32
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature. Occasion...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete?
We are using SmartBear TestComplete ( /products/smartbear-testcomplete-reviews ) for automation over applications.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Ranorex Studio vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: July 2026.
912,788 professionals have used our research since 2012.