Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

LEAPWORK vs Ranorex Studio comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 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

LEAPWORK
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
19th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (19th), Mobile App Testing Tools (9th), Regression Testing Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of LEAPWORK is 1.6%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 4.2%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Ranorex Studio4.2%
LEAPWORK1.6%
Other94.2%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VS
Test Associate & Manager at IGT Solutions
The product has a user-friendly UI, and it provides good support, but it is expensive and difficult to setup
We are partners with the product. We use it for end-to-end automation. We can automate server-based and web-based applications. We can also do continuous integration and continuous delivery It is a low-code/no-code automation tool. The UI is user-friendly. It supports web-based and browser-based…
Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Team Leader -Automation Manager at Citco
Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet
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. Additionally, expanding language support beyond C#, Java, and JavaScript to include Python would be beneficial. An AI feature that automatically detects automation object properties and suggests actions would be a great addition. So, in future releases, AI solutions for automated property identification would be helpful.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable of this solution is the no code option. It offers drag and drop when it comes to development and removes the need for a developer."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"It provides automated testing. Instead of us doing manual testing, we can utilize Leapwork, and it tests most of our critical processes. In the next phase, we also plan to do some process work with it, such as using Leapwork to create reports or provide certain extracts of data."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"The solutions's regression testing is very important for our company, as is the continuous integration process."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"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 stable."
"I'm from a UFT background, so Ranorex Studio has a similar feel in terms of how it handles objects. It just felt familiar even though I'd never seen it before. However, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of UFT, but it's a pretty good start, and it's cost-effective."
"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 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."
 

Cons

"The initial setup is difficult."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"It is a very comprehensive tool, and there is a significant learning curve to being able to adopt the tool. Because it does so much, there is only so much that you can learn. You can, however, do some simpler things right away. They do have a kind of boot camp where some of their experts engage with you, and during that time, you can work on the top initiatives that you want to do, and that's a good process. After you start using the tool, there is a lot more that you would want to do."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing. So, you have an agent on a server, then you have an agent on the laptop of the person who is doing the testing, and that seems like a lot of stuff and a kind of anti-cloud. Why do I have to deploy agents on people's machines in order to do something in the cloud? I'm sure they're doing that so they can monitor their licensing and all that stuff, but it is not necessarily a friendly process."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"The automation of the SAP application could perhaps be improved to make it much simpler."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"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."
"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 solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We got a deal on it for the first year. We're paying $8,000."
"The product is not cheap."
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"We paid €3,000 (approximately $3,300 USD) for this solution. When you add the runtime licenses it will be €3,500 (approximately $3,900 USD)."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Insurance Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Retailer
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

Do you recommend Leapwork? How is Leapwork pricing?
Do you recommend Leapwork? I absolutely recommend Leapwork. In fact, I consider it to be one of the best test automation tools. I like it because it provides many benefits. Some of the ones I fin...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samutec
Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about LEAPWORK vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.