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."Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"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 is a scalable solution."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"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."
"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."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"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 some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"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."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
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.
