BrowserStack vs Qualibrate comparison

BrowserStack and Qualibrate are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #5 with an average rating of 8.3, while Qualibrate is ranked #39. BrowserStack holds a 10.8% mindshare in FT, compared to Qualibrate’s 0.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Qualibrate users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

5,592 Views
3,443 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Qualibrate

Read 5 Qualibrate reviews

164 Views
31 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

Qualibrate

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

BrowserStack and Qualibrate compete in the digital testing and automation category. BrowserStack seems to have the upper hand in terms of feature set and ease of deployment, while Qualibrate is superior in automation capabilities, justifying its higher cost.

Features: BrowserStack includes a comprehensive range of device and browser testing options, efficient cross-browser testing, and flexible integration for seamless testing workflows. Qualibrate focuses on process automation and recording, detailed process management, and effective business process testing functionalities.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could enhance its integration with niche testing frameworks, improve localized support, and expand its feature set for automation testing. Qualibrate may need to simplify its initial setup process, lower its pricing to enhance accessibility for smaller enterprises, and broaden the scope of devices available for testing.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack offers a straightforward deployment process with strong global support, facilitating quick setup and usage. Qualibrate focuses on in-depth enterprise integration, providing dedicated support to ensure smooth transitions in complex environments, offering personalized service in large-scale deployments.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack offers competitive pricing plans, ensuring a fast ROI due to its immediate usability, broad testing scope, and minimal setup costs. Qualibrate is priced higher but delivers high ROI through its specialized automation features, catering well to businesses requiring detailed automation workflows.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. Qualibrate Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. Qualibrate

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 peers since 2012

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

5th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

Qualibrate

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

39th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (22nd), Test Automation Tools (37th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.8%, up from 10.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualibrate is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

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.

Read full review

Reviewer148493

Test Manager at a government with 10,001+ employees

Reduces our testing time significantly, enabling us to release more frequently

The most valuable feature is the way it works, the usability. From the first setup, the user interface is the most beautiful. It's very nice the way you can recover things and make it work. We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate. Because everything we do is in SAP Solution Manager, we are now able to do test automatization, combined with Qualibrate. All the defects are available in SAP Solution Manager and all the changes will be in Qualibrate, immediately. From Qualibrate, we see whether tests are good or not. We can create a test-related incident in Solution Manager for those that are not good, and Test Suite in Solution Manager will notify the person who has to rebuild it. That works very nicely.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."

"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."

"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."

"The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack."

"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."

"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."

More BrowserStack pros

"The widget's ease of use is the most valuable, which means it allows you or business people to record the automated test scripts. In most cases, it is really good because it is the business people who actually know how the system is being used. The simplicity of the design is valuable, where you can record your transactions, then create your automated scripts. You can automate it at the same time, and the automation features are cool."

"The most valuable feature is that it's user-friendly."

"It is the principle functionality that we're leveraging, which really can be defined as recordings and playbacks. So, you record the scripts that you want to execute and you also want to be able to playback. So, these are the features that we are largely leveraging. There are flows and scenarios, and they are the design aspects that fit within the playback and the recording solution. For me, they are the core of Qualibrate, and that's what we're using."

"What Qualibrate makes very easy to do is to record a process flow. Within five minutes you have a clear document produced by Qualibrate. Instead of using Word, and copying and pasting pictures into it from printscreens, within five minutes what you have was easy to make and it's easy for users to use."

"We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate."

Cons

"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."

"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."

"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."

"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."

"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."

"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."

"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."

More BrowserStack cons

"What could be improved would be the intuitiveness of the reporting engine. It does have reporting, i.e., a dashboard, but it is preconfigured, predefined KPIs and datasets. That could be improved because the datasets don't have descriptions, so you really need to know what you're doing. Whereas, it would be great if it could have more descriptions and be easy to build your own KPIs."

"What I would really like to see is if you are running scripts in Qualibrate, and there is a defect, then you can have it automatically raise a defect in your own ticketing system."

"We had an issue with SAP when using PDF forms. That was something that was not supported by Qualibrate, but we solved that issue by choosing another solution. That was the only wish we had with Qualibrate."

"Not everything in SAP works well with Qualibrate. There is a development tool called xpath and you have to program it. We always thought it wouldn't be necessary to program it with Qualibrate, that everything could be solved by Qualibrate without programming, but you have to program some things. Using xpath is more complicated, and not easy for everybody. It would be helpful if there were a no-code solution for this."

"There is a module that we would like to have. We would like Qualibrate to design a requirements module so that we can design our testing, our flows, and our scenarios based on our actual requirements. Right now, we're doing that, but we're having to do it outside of Qualibrate. For example, in Excel, we might have a list of 50, 60, or 70 different requirements and combinations of tests that need to be executed, and since that module doesn't exist in Qualibrate, we're doing it offline. We have already vocalized that wishlist to them, and they have acknowledged it, but I have no idea when they're going to get around to deploying something like that. It is probably number one on our list."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"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."

"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."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"The price is fine."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"We signed a three-year contract and the pricing is in line with our expectations."

"We probably have 10 licenses, but I don't know what are the costs or anything like that."

"Qualibrate is realistically priced. I can't compare it because I haven't looked at other tools, but I think it is good. What I like is you can simply add new users, if you want. It has a license model that comes with different types of users, which I think makes sense."

"I compared the prices of the 15 solutions we looked at. Qualibrate was the most valuable because it could be integrated with SAP Solution Manager."

"Automated testing is not cheap. But other companies, for example, Panaya, required a minimum of 10 licenses. Qualibrate allowed us to start small, with three licenses, with a price that was competitive within the market."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

University

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 34% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 17% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 3% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

June 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

Qualibrate

June 2025

Download Qualibrate product report

Overview

BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

BrowserStack

Undertaking a software transformation journey is a high risk. We offer a simple yet powerful solution to minimize the risk and reduce the implementation resources up to 80%.

Qualibrate is the cloud solution for SAP & web apps test automation, like Salesforce: it has the power of simplicity, customization, and integration with the most CI/CD tools. Test cases are highly reusable and easily maintainable.

All you need to do is to record a Business Process: user actions, test data, and technical information will be captured. The recording will be your unique source of truth for running Automated tests and Manual tests, but also for Learning.

Qualibrate

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

AirFrance KLM, Provincie Noord Holland, Ministerie van Defensie, Nouryon, Bell Helicopter, Textron,

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. Qualibrate

May 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. Qualibrate

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Qualibrate and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. Qualibrate 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.