IT Central Station is now PeerSpot: Here's why

BrowserStack vs Silk Test comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
BrowserStack Logo
7,166 views|5,919 comparisons
Micro Focus Logo
3,787 views|2,475 comparisons
Featured Review
Buyer's Guide
BrowserStack vs. Silk Test
July 2022
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: July 2022.
622,949 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable.""Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development.""It's helpful for me to test on different devices.""I like that it offers full device capability.""BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from.""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.""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 feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."

More BrowserStack Pros →

"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts.""A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing.""The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."

More Silk Test Pros →

Cons
"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.""Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience.""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 operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster.""Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier.""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."

More BrowserStack Cons →

"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important.""The support for automation with iOS applications can be better.""Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."

More Silk Test Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "This solution costs less than competing products."
  • "The price is fine."
  • "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."
  • "The price of BrowserStack is high."
  • More BrowserStack Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."
  • "We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
  • More Silk Test Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    622,949 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:I like that it offers full device capability.
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts.
    Top Answer:We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee.
    Top Answer:We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw… more »
    Ranking
    9th
    Views
    7,166
    Comparisons
    5,919
    Reviews
    8
    Average Words per Review
    550
    Rating
    7.8
    18th
    Views
    3,787
    Comparisons
    2,475
    Reviews
    3
    Average Words per Review
    752
    Rating
    7.7
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test
    Learn More
    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.
    SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.
    Offer
    Learn more about BrowserStack
    Learn more about Silk Test
    Sample Customers
    Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
    Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company26%
    Comms Service Provider16%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    Insurance Company5%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company27%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Comms Service Provider13%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business25%
    Midsize Enterprise42%
    Large Enterprise33%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise64%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise20%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise10%
    Large Enterprise73%
    Buyer's Guide
    BrowserStack vs. Silk Test
    July 2022
    Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Silk Test and other solutions. Updated: July 2022.
    622,949 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    BrowserStack is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Silk Test is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 3 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 7.8, while Silk Test is rated 7.6. 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 Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". BrowserStack is most compared with Perfecto, Sauce Labs, LambdaTest, CrossBrowserTesting and Bitbar, whereas Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Selenium HQ, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Apache JMeter and Tricentis Tosca. See our BrowserStack vs. Silk Test 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.