We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and Visual Studio Test Professional 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."I like that it offers full device capability."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The integration is very good."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"I was satisfied with the support given by customer service."
"Visual Studio is an exemplary integrated development environment that stands out due to its exceptional features. It allows for the seamless selection of the appropriate programming language for the specific development tasks at hand. This facilitates a swift and effortless transition between languages, providing a highly efficient development experience."
"The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper."
"The documentation is easy, and it helps us solve our problems."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and availability."
"Easy to use and easily scalable."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"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 would like to see clearer visibility."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"Sometimes Visual Studio is slow. It uses a lot of resources like memory and processing power. You should optimize the performance by only installing what you need on your machine. Don't install unnecessary things that will slow your machine."
"In Visual Studio we still don't have anything which can pinpoint memory leaks on a certain code line."
"The product must provide more automation."
"The interface should be made attractive."
"The solution should be cheaper."
"The documentation is limited."
"Visual Studio Test Professional should include more automation."
"The solution's deployment is not very easy and should be made easier."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 23 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "A user-friendly tool for performance testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto and CrossBrowserTesting, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText UFT One. See our BrowserStack vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Functional 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.