No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Telerik Test Studio vs Visual Studio Test Professional comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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

Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
25th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (12th), Regression Testing Tools (13th), Test Automation Tools (23rd)
Visual Studio Test Professi...
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.9%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Visual Studio Test Professional is 2.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Visual Studio Test Professional2.0%
Telerik Test Studio1.9%
Other96.1%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Raghvendra Jyothi - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Project Management at Capgemini
Very good performance and load testing capabilities
There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.
Payel Saha - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Automation Architect at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Integrated collaboration with automated test management has improved our agile workflows and continuously supports quality reporting
Visual Studio Test Professional could be improved as earlier we had flexibility in automation testing with TFS, which became a bit difficult moving to Azure DevOps. Additionally, in Visual Studio Code, we have an agent mode for GitHub Copilot, which is very helpful in testing or development phases, while Visual Studio's GitHub Copilot is a bit tricky and sometimes does not provide my desired output.For future improvements, I would like to see prompt fixing, as currently, if something goes wrong in Visual Studio, the fixing options are not always correct. If that intelligence is embedded, it would be very helpful.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"One of the best documentation in the world."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and availability."
"It is a good and user-friendly tool."
"The product is very easy to use and we were able to scale up the automation solution quickly which was beneficial."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is great for the development of .NET and we use it both as a cloud solution and on-premises."
"The debugging feature is valuable."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
 

Cons

"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"We have not seen a return on investment yet."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"The performance could be faster."
"The product must provide more integration."
"There are some bugs, and sometimes it runs very slowly, but nothing that is major."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code."
"The solution's documentation could be improved for beginners."
"It needs more integration with other tools for monitoring. Microsoft also needs to make it more modern to make it work with microservices and the cloud. It is a bit outdated currently."
"One of the problems with this solution is you need to be highly technically skilled to operate it, it is not for everyone."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
"The product is very expensive."
"I think that the pricing is quite good."
"We have licensing for Visual Studio Community edition."
"We pay for the solution annually and the price could be reduced."
"There are two versions of Visual Studio Test Professional: Community and Professional. We are currently using the Community version, but if we start working on a commercial product, we will consider upgrading to the Professional version. We need to identify how we will proceed with our projects, and based on that, we will decide on our licensing."
"The pricing is expensive."
"Users have to pay a licensing fee for Visual Studio Test Professional."
"We use the solution’s community version, and the solution’s pricing could be cheaper."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
906,887 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise25
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Visual Studio Test Professional?
The tool is free, resulting in no costs associated with its use. The absence of price makes it cost-effective.
What needs improvement with Visual Studio Test Professional?
Visual Studio Test Professional could be improved as earlier we had flexibility in automation testing with TFS, which became a bit difficult moving to Azure DevOps. Additionally, in Visual Studio C...
What is your primary use case for Visual Studio Test Professional?
We are using Microsoft Visual Studio for automation testing, specifically using C# Selenium.Visual Studio Test Case Management, which is embedded in Azure DevOps itself, is part of our process. We ...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
Transport for Greater Manchester, Ordina, Bluegarden A/S, CLEAResult, Jet.com, OSIsoft, Australian Taxation Office, BookedOut, Tracasa
Find out what your peers are saying about Telerik Test Studio vs. Visual Studio Test Professional and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
906,887 professionals have used our research since 2012.