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

Ranorex Studio vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 16, 2025

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

Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
14th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
7th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (4th)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 5.0%, up from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.9%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Q&A Highlights

Aug 24, 2016
 

Featured Reviews

Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"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 most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"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."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"The solution’s customer support should be improved."
"Occasionally, image comparison results in failures, possibly due to issues with resolution or font size on the server side, which can be challenging to identify."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"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)."
"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."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Answers from the Community

Aug 24, 2016
Aug 24, 2016
Thanks all, it's encouraging to see so much support and responses
2 out of 16 answers
it_user83412 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 23, 2016
All of these solutions are based on scripts and face the associated limitations. Test data management, parameterization, dynamic TBOMs, BPCA, SolMan integration and script maintenance all pose potential issues. I'd recommend looking at Tricentis Tosca or Worksoft, both of which provide scriptless automation for SAP GUI. Tosca also supports Fiori and NWBC natively as well as over 30 different UI and API technologies. [FULL DISCLOSURE: I work for Tricentis, so obviously biased, but we serve many SAP clients]
it_user457878 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 23, 2016
UFT will support or Tricentis TOSCA .
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Ranorex Studio?
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Ranorex Studio?
I'd rate it around five out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, not too cheap but not overly pricey.
What needs improvement with Ranorex Studio?
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 languag...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about Ranorex Studio vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.