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

Ranorex Studio vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 22, 2025

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
16th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (7th)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
4th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
5th
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 July 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 4.7%, down from 4.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 6.0%, down from 6.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Q&A Highlights

Aug 24, 2016
 

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.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"The solution is stable."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"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 its user-friendly interface."
"Object identification is good."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
 

Cons

"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"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)."
"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 object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"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."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The integration tools could be better."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"It comes with a high cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 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
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
Aug 23, 2016
UFT will support or Tricentis TOSCA .
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
6%
 

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...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
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...
 

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: June 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.