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
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.7%, down from 11.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.0%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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

"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The integration is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
 

Cons

"We are struggling to do local testing."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"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."
"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."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"Headless testing would be a big improvement."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"The solution’s customer support should be improved."
"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."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution costs less than competing products."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"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."
"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."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"The price is fine."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
862,452 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
University
6%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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: July 2025.
862,452 professionals have used our research since 2012.