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
14th
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
6th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
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 October 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 4.1%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.4%, 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 TestComplete5.4%
Ranorex Studio4.1%
Other90.5%
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

"It has reduced the cost of production and operations."
"Based on my experience, this would be my tool of choice for test automation."
"It works well for us, we can quickly add service agents wherever we need to so we can run multiple scripts in parallel, and it runs pretty strongly while costing just a fraction of a UFT solution."
"Overall, it's a good product."
"Easy to use - without any dev skills you can automate some nice things C# or VB.NET is used for development, and you can find a lot of information online Fast email support and a forum with several experienced users and Ranorex employees on it Online webinars to help you get started We can combine Ranorex with Jenkins and JIRA."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"I’ve always found their support second to none, with responses to my questions answered promptly and technical staff who are extremely technical, which is refreshing given the generally basic support previously experienced from other vendors."
"In this particular area Ranorex proved to be a perfect choice."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The Object Spy has surpassed any other "spy" tools I have ever used."
"If a user is testing behavioral actions, then SmartBear is a very good product to go to."
"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."
"This tool is very easy to use and very powerful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
 

Cons

"Their logs are not compatible with the continuous integration we use internally."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"Support for Mac and Linux would be handy, it supports only Windows"
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"The solution has good quality and functionality but I would not recommend it because of its unfamiliarity in the market."
"Tests will fail if browser minimised, Parallel Execution Not possible (We could do are some extend if we use DOM method)."
"The compatibility with different browsers needs to be improved."
"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."
"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)."
"One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"Product ungracefully crashes or hangs sometimes."
"The solution’s customer support should be improved."
"Right now, in terms of recording and scripting the solution is not user-friendly."
"I would like to see improved language support, with Python being my first choice."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"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."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"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."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"The product is becoming more and more expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
919,894 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
13%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Construction 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: October 2026.
919,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.