We performed a comparison between BrowserStack 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."It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"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."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"The integration is very good."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"We found the initial setup to be straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"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."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"Selenium has room for improvement as it does not support the tests and result-sharing in anything but a manual way."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"There is no good tool to find the Xpath. They should provide a good tool to find Xpath for dynamic elements and integrate API (REST/ SOAP) testing support."
"The initial setup was difficult."
"Selenium HQ can improve the authorization login using OTP, it is not able to be done in this solution."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 103 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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 Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Subject7. See our BrowserStack vs. Selenium HQ report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
