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."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."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The solution is stable."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"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."
"Object identification is good."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"I would like to be able to customize the data grids. They are currently written in Visual Basic and we are unable to get down to the cell level without hard-code."
"When we have updated the solution in the past there have been issues with the libraries. They need to make it clear that the libraries need to be upgraded too."
"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."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"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."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"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 initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"There's no in-built reporting available."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 7 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 35 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 7.8, 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 "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, OpenText UFT One and Eggplant Test, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Telerik Test Studio, Worksoft Certify and Katalon Studio. 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.
