"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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.
