"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"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."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"It just added some flexibility. There was nothing that improved our coding standards, etc. because all of our UIs were functional before we tried it."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open-source, has a good interface, and integrates well."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"It's easy for new people to get trained on this solution. If we are hiring new people, the resource pool in the market in test automation is largely around Selenium."
"The stability and performance are good."
"What I like about Selenium HQ is that we wrote it ourselves. I think it's perfect. It's a framework that you can use to devise your own products, which is nice."
"It's not too complicated to implement."
"In general, I would say that the API set is the most valuable feature."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is slow."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."
"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."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"The reporting part can be better."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"The installation could be simplified, it is a bit difficult to install."
"We use X path for our selectors, and sometimes, it is difficult to create locators for elements. It is very time-consuming because they're embedded deeply. A lot of that comes from the way that you architect your page. If devs are putting the IDs on their elements, it is great, and it allows you to get those elements super fast, but that's not necessarily the case. So, Selenium should be able to get your elements a lot quicker. Currently, it is time-consuming to get your selectors, locate your locators, and get to the elements."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
BrowserStack is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 32 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 7.8, while Selenium HQ is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Test against a huge range of device and browser combinations but expect some connectivity issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Highly customizable and the best tool out there to do automated testing". BrowserStack is most compared with Perfecto, Sauce Labs, LambdaTest, CrossBrowserTesting and TestProject, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence, Worksoft Certify, Tricentis Tosca, Appium and IBM Rational Functional Tester. See our BrowserStack vs. Selenium HQ 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.
