We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and Ranorex Studio 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."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 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 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."
"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."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"The integration is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"I'm from a UFT background, so Ranorex Studio has a similar feel in terms of how it handles objects. It just felt familiar even though I'd never seen it before. However, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of UFT, but it's a pretty good start, and it's cost-effective."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"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."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"I would like to be able to customize the data grids. They are currently written in Visual Basic and we are unable to get down to the cell level without hard-code."
"We are mainly working for manufacturing OEMs but the integration is not available. It would be a benefit if they built one integration tool for all the Teamcenter home servers and software as the main PLM data source. It is a simple process at this time, the integration could be made easier."
"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"I'd like to know their testing strategies and to know what they can automate and what they can't. It can become pretty frustrating if you're trying to automate something that changes on a monthly or weekly basis."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while Ranorex Studio 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 Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and Bitbar, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One. See our BrowserStack vs. Ranorex Studio 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.
