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 integration is very good."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"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."
"The testing solution produces the best web applications."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"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."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"We had some execution issues."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"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."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"For now, I guess Selenium could add some other features like object communications for easy expansion."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 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 Katalon Studio. 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.
