We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"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 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 solution is stable."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"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."
"It is very stable."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The stability and performance are good."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"I'd like to know their testing strategies and to know what they can automate and what they can't. It can become pretty frustrating if you're trying to automate something that changes on a monthly or weekly basis."
"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"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."
"Selenium uses a layer-based approach that is somewhat slower than Eggplant when it comes to executing code."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and Eggplant Test, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText UFT One. See our Ranorex Studio vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
