BrowserStack vs Selenium HQ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Selenium HQ
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
103
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 12.8%, up from 8.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Selenium HQ is 4.1%, down from 6.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
Regression Testing Tools
4.9%
 

Featured Reviews

OA
Apr 2, 2024
Incredibly useful for our mobile testing needs, including integrations
For my project, we utilize a VPN and BrowserStack for testing. This allows me to test our website across various browsers and platforms, including different versions of iOS, Android, and web browsers. It ensures that our website functions correctly across different environments and devices…
JQ
May 24, 2024
Offers an effortless setup process with superior automation features for web applications
Selenium HQ is an automation tool for automating applications.  Selenium HQ is primarily used for smoke tests, and its excellent stability allows such tests to be executed seamlessly. The solution helps in regression tests where certain scenarios need to be repeatedly set. Manual processing of…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 like that it offers full device capability."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"I have found using IDE and Cucumber framework is good."
"There is a supportive community around it."
"It has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
 

Cons

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"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."
"The solution is slow."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"One limitation of Selenium is that it is purely focused on web application testing."
"I would like to see a library of bomb files with an automated process and integration with Jenkins and Slack."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"It is not easy to make IE plus Selenium work good as other browsers. Firefox and Chrome are the best ones to work with Selenium."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"The latest versions are often unstable."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"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."
"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."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"The price is fine."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"Selenium HQ is a free solution."
"It is free."
"It is an open-source tool."
"It's open-source, so it's free."
"Currently, Selenium HQ is free for customers."
"Selenium is open-source."
"We are using Selenium open-source, so there is no need to purchase anything."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
789,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

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.
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?
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.
How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?
Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...
What do you like most about Selenium HQ?
Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
SeleniumHQ
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, experitest, Tricentis GmbH, SmartBear Software
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Selenium HQ and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
789,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.