Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BrowserStack vs IBM DevOps Test UI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
29th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.0%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.0%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
BrowserStack10.0%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.0%
Other89.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users
I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.
HZ
Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"The integration is very good."
"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 speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
 

Cons

"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 for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"BrowserStack is very expensive and they keep increasing their cost, which is absolutely ridiculous, especially when someone like LambdaTest is coming through for literal thousands of dollars less, with the same services."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"The solution is slow."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"The price is fine."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Government
9%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?
The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?
My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
IBM Rational Functional Tester
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Edumate
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. IBM DevOps Test UI and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.