Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BrowserStack vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.0%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.9%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
BrowserStack10.0%
SmartBear TestComplete4.9%
Other85.1%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users
I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack."
"I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
 

Cons

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"The solution is slow."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"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."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"The price is fine."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
"The solution's pricing is too high."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
870,701 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise32
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?
The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?
My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature. Occasion...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
870,701 professionals have used our research since 2012.