

BrowserStack and Selenium HQ compete in the automated testing category. BrowserStack has an advantage in integration capabilities and cross-browser testing, while Selenium HQ offers open-source flexibility and customization.
Features: BrowserStack provides cross-browser testing, cloud infrastructure, and real device testing. Selenium HQ offers an open-source framework, customization options, and scripting control with wide language support.
Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could enhance its pricing flexibility, increase customization options, and improve real-time collaboration features. Selenium HQ may focus on simplifying setups, expanding direct customer support, and enhancing user interface intuitiveness.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack excels in cloud-based deployment with responsive customer service, suitable for less technical teams. Selenium HQ requires intensive setup and relies on community support, making it ideal for skilled teams.
Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack offers tiered pricing corresponding to features and usage, which may lead to higher costs but faster ROI. Selenium HQ, being open-source, involves minimal upfront costs, allowing significant long-term returns for those managing setup and maintenance internally.
Pipeline executions that used to take eight hours have been reduced to one hour, enhancing continuous deployment and providing quicker feedback cycles.
I think its biggest benefit is how it integrates with our CI/CD, not necessarily giving access to developers for test devices.
I have seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, specifically a 50% reduction in human capacity.
BrowserStack customer support is excellent, with knowledgeable staff assisting throughout onboarding, setup, and understanding our needs to provide tailored solutions.
The marketplace community and forums are what we browse and look after, and we have found solutions whenever we tried to find anything.
I have not had the need to escalate questions to Selenium HQ tech support recently, as open community support is widely available and has been sufficient for our needs.
BrowserStack's scalability is enhanced by its auto-scaling capabilities on AWS.
They reproduce the same scenario, and then we create the bug ticket for them to fix.
We can execute thousands of test cases weekly, and our automation coverage using Selenium HQ is approximately eighty-five percent.
BrowserStack is quite stable for me because it offers many different devices, is always up to date, and has a nice user interface with good user experience.
Sometimes there is slowness in the network, especially when working with AWS-based hosting.
Selenium HQ is a scalable solution; it has been in production for the last two years, but I have been working on it for the last six years, so it is definitely scalable.
BrowserStack is very expensive and they keep increasing their cost, which is absolutely ridiculous, especially when someone like LambdaTest is coming through for literal thousands of dollars less, with the same services.
Going forward, one way BrowserStack could improve is by incorporating AI concepts to create tests automatically from provided URLs or user intentions, generating scripts without needing users to write automation scripts.
I think false positives are an area where BrowserStack can improve, as I have often seen things working fine on actual devices, but on BrowserStack devices, issues arise due to network slowness or AWS region connectivity problems that cause lag.
An automatic update mechanism for Selenium HQ would be beneficial, eliminating the need for manual downloads and updates of browser drivers when new versions are released.
I don't know if we have that capability to provide different data sources such as SQL Server, CSV, or maybe some other databases, so that kind of capability would be great.
pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month.
The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack. We get to run our automation against their full suite of devices, which alleviates the uplift of manual testing.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by helping us reduce the human capacity by 50%, with that reduction mostly being in manual testing efforts.
I use the feature of testing on beta versions in my workflow all the time, checking how the application works on the pre-release build, and our QA people also verify and perform regression testing using the pre-release build on specific devices through BrowserStack.
New features in Selenium HQ make object identification easier without reliance on XPath and CSS.
When we were doing these tests manually, it took several hours of effort, and those hours, when counted on the basis of person days, used to be maybe six or seven months of effort, which we can now do every day by running the pipeline.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| BrowserStack | 8.1% |
| Selenium HQ | 3.2% |
| Other | 88.7% |

| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 11 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 13 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 41 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 33 |
| Large Enterprise | 51 |
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.
Selenium HQ is an umbrella project that includes a number of tools and frameworks that allow for web browser automation. In particular, Selenium offers a framework for the W3C WebDriver specification, a platform- and language-neutral coding interface that works with all of the main web browsers.
Selenium is a toolset for automating web browsers that uses the best methods available to remotely control browser instances and simulate a user's interaction with the browser. It enables users to mimic typical end-user actions, such as typing text into forms, choosing options from drop-down menus, checking boxes, and clicking links in documents. Additionally, it offers a wide range of other controls, including mouse movement, arbitrary JavaScript execution, and much more.
Although Selenium HQ is generally used for front-end website testing, it is also a browser user agent library. The interfaces are universal in their use, which enables composition with other libraries to serve your purpose.
The source code for Selenium is accessible under the Apache 2.0 license. The project is made possible by volunteers who have kindly committed hundreds of hours to the development and maintenance of the code.
Selenium HQ Tools
These three main Selenium HQ tools have powerful capabilities:
Reviews from Real Users
Selenium HQ stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Two major ones are its driver interface and its speed. PeerSpot users take note of the advantages of these features in their reviews:
Avijit B., an automation tester at a tech services company, writes of the solution, “The driver interface is really useful. When we implement the Selenium driver interface, we can easily navigate through all of the pages and sections of an app, including performing things like clicking, putting through SendKeys, scrolling down, tagging, and all the other actions we need to test for in an application.”
Another PeerSpot reviewer, a software engineer at a financial services firm, notes, “Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
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.