We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"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."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"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."
"The integration is very good."
"I like its simplicity."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"Selenium HQ lets you create your customized functions with whatever language you want to use, like Python, Java, .NET, etc. You can integrate with Selenium and write."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is its online community support, which is comprehensive and easy to access."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"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."
"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."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"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."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"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 takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"I would like for the next release to support parallel testing."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. 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 Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and OpenText UFT One, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Katalon Studio. See our BrowserStack vs. Selenium HQ 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.
