BrowserStack vs ReadyAPI comparison

BrowserStack and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.3, while SmartBear is ranked #17 with an average rating of 7.5. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 1.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 86% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 25 BrowserStack reviews

5,813 Views
4,866 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

ReadyAPI

Read 36 ReadyAPI reviews

1,302 Views
665 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

ReadyAPI

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

BrowserStack and ReadyAPI are key competitors in software testing. BrowserStack has an edge in usability and accessibility, providing seamless integration, whereas ReadyAPI excels in API testing and data-driven testing capabilities for comprehensive testing needs.

Features: BrowserStack provides live cross-browser testing, automated testing on numerous real devices, and seamless integration with development pipelines. ReadyAPI offers robust API testing functionalities, integration with CI/CD tools, and advanced test scenario creation capabilities.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could enhance its API testing support, offer more detailed reporting options, and improve performance analysis features. ReadyAPI could simplify its setup process, enhance its user interface for accessibility, and expand its mobile testing functionalities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack offers straightforward cloud-based deployment with minimal setup, alongside responsive customer service. ReadyAPI requires a more complex on-premises setup, with extensive customization options, but may require more resources for deployment and support.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack's pricing reflects good ROI for browser compatibility testing on varied devices. ReadyAPI, while more expensive initially, provides significant ROI through powerful API testing tools, justified for high-quality API performance focus.

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

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. ReadyAPI

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

ReadyAPI

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

17th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (7th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.4%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReadyAPI is 1.3%, down from 1.6% 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

SandeepSingh9

Sr. QA Engineer at Arizona Department of Education

Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper

One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration.

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

"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's helpful for me to test on different devices."

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

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

"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 most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."

More BrowserStack pros

"One of the features of ReadyAPI that's worth mentioning is that it allows you to parameterize. I'm working with more than two hundred resources, so I don't have to go and make a small change at each point every time. I have the option to just parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere. Another valuable feature of ReadyAPI is that it provides a customized environment. In my company, you work in different environments, such as QA, UAT, and LT, so the URLs for every environment are different. In ReadyAPI, you can customize your environment, set it up, then start working on it. Another feature worth mentioning that's offered in ReadyAPI is automating your test value as the tool allows Groovy scripting. In your test case, you can use a Groovy script that says that in a particular test case, you have ten resources, but you just want to exhibit five and that you don't want to exhibit the remaining five. You can write a small Groovy script that lets you execute just five resources out of the ten resources. I also like that ReadyAPI allows you to read the data from CFC and Excel. It also allows you to create or customize your data, but that only works at a certain point because every application has its specific data. ReadyAPI cannot generate every data, but when I'm posting and I want to generate a random name, such as a first name, I can do it in ReadyAPI. The tool also has many different features which I find valuable, including Git integration."

"The two most valuable features we use are the functional test and the security test."

"This solution is very intuitive. Once you finish your first few testing cases, you can change several parameters and create lots of testing cases. You could use the same testing cases for different purposes such as automation, performance and screen testing."

"The most valuable feature has been the assertion as a test step as this has allowed us to increase the scope of testing and validation."

"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."

"The interface is ok and they have the ability to re-load tests so that you can reuse them."

"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are the scripting tools and the connectivity to external data sources, such as Excel and PDF files. There are plenty of useful features that are useful, such as automating flexibility and usability. Overall, the solution is easy to use."

"The initial setup of ReadyAPI is straightforward."

Cons

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

"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."

"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."

"We had some execution issues."

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

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

"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."

More BrowserStack cons

"Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in considering which technologies to adopt."

"Many users will consider this solution expensive compared to the layout. It is more expensive than other solutions."

"It doesn't have connectors to the NoSQL database. This is one of the things where they do not have a very solid strategy today. Other solutions have an in-built mechanism where I can directly and easily connect. An API is more around a user submitting a request on the frontend. It then hits the backend, puts the data, and responds back. If I am hitting MongoDB or NoSQL databases, I do not have ready-made inbuilt solutions in ReadyAPI that can easily help me in automating it faster. In our organization, we deal with NoSQL databases, and therefore, we need Groovy. We just cannot have a connector from ReadyAPI to do that. I have to write Groovy scripts. If you have themes that are predominantly using MongoDB, it leads to more maintenance and support activity because we are introducing more code into our commission. In terms of additional features, it can have cloud support. This is one of the things where we are getting into cloud support. We'll see how it works, but it is one of the doubts that we still have."

"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."

"They have performance testing also. However, it's not that great."

"The performance in some cases needs improvement. Sometimes it requires too many resources."

"It is challenging doing upgrades and patches because sometimes the environmental variables or suits in the projects get erased."

"Advanced functionalities could be improved."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"It costs approximately $200 000 Taiwan Dollars for three years."

"This is a cheap solution when you consider the money that will be saved in testing."

"We have approximately 12 licenses in place. There are other solutions that are more expensive than ReadyAPI that have more features, but if the scope of the project is limited to SOAP and REST service, then this is the best option."

"For each license, they charge the same amount, which is less than $1,000 for each desktop license."

"The solution is dynamically priced so you only pay for what you use."

"The cost of a license is probably around $1,000 to $2,000. Accounting is done by my leadership. I am more into implementations and making sure all things and processes are taken care of and the frameworks are maintained and managed."

"If I remember correctly, ReadyAPI costs between $5,000 to $7,000 for five thousand virtual users running it at a given point in time. Other tools, for example, Apache JMeter, can run millions of users at a given time. ReadyAPI is a tool that requires you to pay more money if you want more users to run it for performance testing. For functional testing, each ReadyAPI license costs $1,000, and you do get basic testing, and it's inclusive of one hundred users. In my company, if there's a need for more than one hundred users, my team uses Apache JMeter because it's futile to end up paying $5,000 or $6,000 annually just for performance testing, which can be done in Apache JMeter as well. Given the circumstances, my team does performance testing only towards the end of the fiscal year when the regulatory testing of applications takes place. If I have to run ReadyAPI just for two days or just for ten or fifteen odd days, then it's not worth paying $5,000 for the license with the small number of users provided by ReadyAPI."

"We use fixed licenses, and the last time I checked, I want to say it's around $680 per seat per year."

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

19%

Computer Software Company

15%

Insurance Company

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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?

I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.

See all answers

What do you like most about ReadyAPI?

The performance testing capabilities are very good.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ReadyAPI?

Currently, we don't extensively use the performance testing due to license costs. License prices can be a factor in considering which technologies to adopt.

See all answers

What needs improvement with ReadyAPI?

In native teams and cloud environments, there is room for improvement. I'm considering the use of AWS and its Lambda functionalities prepared by the vendor. These are more so points from my wishlis...

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 33% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 18% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 4% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Apache JMeter vs ReadyAPI

Compared 40% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs ReadyAPI

Compared 17% of the time

Parasoft SOAtest vs ReadyAPI

Compared 12% of the time

Katalon Studio vs ReadyAPI

Compared 12% of the time

ReadyAPI Test vs ReadyAPI

Compared 7% of the time

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

April 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

ReadyAPI

April 2025

Download ReadyAPI product report

Also Known As

No data available

Ready API

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

ReadyAPI is an all-in-one automated testing platform that allows teams to create, manage, and execute automated functional, security, and performance tests in one centralized interface.

ReadyAPI Features

Some of ReadyAPI’s key features include:

Continuous integration
Comprehensive dashboard
API discovery
Central, standardized reporting function
Plugin architecture
ReadyAPI Projects
Multiple options for scripting to create functional, load, or security tests

ReadyAPI Benefits

Some of the benefits of using ReadyAPI include:

Easy and flexible test creation and execution: ReadyAPI has visual editors and wizards that make testing easy, saving time and simplifying onboarding.
Test APIs continuously: With ReadyAPI you can run consistent tests on local environments, Docker containers, or other distributed staging environments.
Team friendly: ReadyAPI enables software teams with the ability to easily share testing projects and artifacts, share licenses between team members, and report issues directly from the testing IDE.
Powerful, data-driven testing capabilities: With ReadyAPI, you can save time by checking for numerous real world conditions.
Supports multiple specifications, schemas, and protocols: ReadyAPI includes legacy SOAP services, microservices powered by Apache Kafka, and mainstream REST services, as well as IoT use cases leveraging MQTT. It allows you to test and virtualize the most popular API protocols and also to import APIs from specifications and schemas instantly.

Reviews from Real Users

Below are some reviews and helpful feedback written by Dell EMC Unity users.

PeerSpot user Vallalarasu P., Test Architect at a tech services company, states, “ReadyAPI is one of the best tools for API testing because they have made a single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and also service actualization. We also have virtual work that can be an add-in within ReadyAPI. For integration for CACD, they have something called TestEngine, which can also be an add-on for ReadyAPI. We use Python request library and things like that but if you're a bigger organization with hundreds of APIs, then ReadyAPI is a one-stop solution for complete API testing. If you consider TestComplete and other products for an equivalent outcome, you might get something nearly comparable, butReadyAPI is the outstanding product.”

An IT Manager at an insurance company says the solution has “Fast automation, less coding, and is pretty lightweight. When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."

Balamurugan A., Manager at a financial services firm, comments, “We like the user interface. The most valuable features are the integration with Jira and the test management tools.

They have interfaces with our performance tools, so we were able to leverage all of these integrations and plugins. It is very good from an integrative solution standpoint.”

SmartBear

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

Healthcare Data Solutions (HDS)

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. ReadyAPI

April 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. ReadyAPI

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. ReadyAPI 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.