We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and Perfecto 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."Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."
"The reporting feature is really tough to find in some of the other products that are competitors. Having your CITB type dashboard, where we can see the test results and see recordings of each test that passed or failed, is probably one of the distinguishing aspects of Perfecto."
"Perfecto has affected our software quality in a good way. It has allowed us to execute on-demand and on-choice. We also track the number of issues that we find in the product. Every single day, we tag the issues that we found. For example, if something was found by automation, that means it was found by a Perfecto execution. Over time, we realized the real value in tracking those numbers. We can see now that we have clearly been finding issues earlier. It has allowed us to catch our defects earlier, thus improving the quality of our applications."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is that it covers all types of devices on the market allowing you to test different versions of an operating system."
"We're working in Agile and we need results ASAP. The fact that the lab provides same-day access to new devices is extremely important to us."
"It saves on the cost and effort of having to maintain our own virtual testing environment. Even our onshore team is not in the city that we work in, so that helps a lot. Even if we didn't invest a lot in getting multiple devices, having to share those devices would become a hassle."
"The automated test reporting functionality is the most valuable feature. We use the CI Dashboard. It's very important as it is the main reporting tool for our automated tests."
"It creates a faster production cycle and is quick to market. Things get deployed earlier because the testing happens on time. We can do a lot of panelization, so a lot of test phases can happen in a panel. People don't have to wait for a device to come to them. They can access multiple devices at the same time and do testing at the same time."
"In terms of Perfecto's ability to perform cross-platform testing, I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"We had some execution issues."
"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"There could be some improvements done on the interface. At times, there has been a bit of a struggle when finding things on the interface. A UI revamp would be a better option in future. That UI hasn't changed much in a long time, so I think they could just make it a bit better so that people could find stuff easily and intuitively."
"I would like to see the inclusion of machine learning features. If we can have that, it will be a better tool."
"We have had some issues with performance, which is something that should be improved."
"Previously, we used the cradle. Every time the mobile was blocking it, we would have to ask Perfecto to provide another one. That took a lot of time away from us."
"It does well for mobile testing, but when it comes to the web aspect, it is lagging a little bit in terms of execution."
"The monitoring features, in particular network traffic monitoring, could be improved."
"We've had a couple of issues lately with videos not loading or browsers dying after some execution, although that happens very rarely."
"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while Perfecto is ranked 3rd in Functional Testing Tools with 23 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while Perfecto is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Perfecto writes "Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Tricentis Tosca, CrossBrowserTesting and Bitbar, whereas Perfecto is most compared with Sauce Labs, Appium, AWS Device Farm, Katalon Studio and HeadSpin. See our BrowserStack vs. Perfecto report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
