We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and IBM Rational Functional Tester based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"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."
"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."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"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."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"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."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2. 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 IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and Tricentis Tosca, whereas IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Worksoft Certify.
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.
