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."The solution is stable."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"Object identification is good."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"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 plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"It is compatible with and supports multiple languages, such as Java and Python. It is open source, and it is widely used."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"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."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"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."
"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."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"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."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
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.