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's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."
"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"For me, the most valuable feature of Selenium lies in its ability to help us find elements quickly. Apart from that, the driver interface is really useful, too. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application."
"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."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines."
"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."
"The solution is slow."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"I would like to see automatic logs generated."
"There are some tiny issues with SeleniumHQ. For example, with respect to the scraping tests. Sometimes, a website will have some hidden items or blockages that inhibit us from extracting data directly. It would be beneficial if Selenium could extract that information."
"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."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
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.