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."Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"The solution is stable."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"It is a scalable solution."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"Data parametrization and parallelization are the most important features in any automation tool."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"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."
"If there are many queries on the web page, Ranorex will not render the page correctly. I had about 1,000 queries on the page, and the solution was not able to handle it."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"I continuously see failures in threads when it is running in parallel."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"For email-based applications, we can't automate as we would like to, making it necessary to bring in a third-party product to do so."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 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 "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and Telerik Test Studio, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and BrowserStack. 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.
