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

BrowserStack vs Testim 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
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
Testim
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
11th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 8.1%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Testim is 3.0%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
BrowserStack8.1%
Testim3.0%
Other88.9%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RM
Managing Technical Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Cross-platform testing has accelerated releases and now needs smarter AI-driven test creation
The best features that BrowserStack offers include the ability to run manual and automated tests on real devices. We can create bugs, integrate it with other platforms like Jira or Azure, and use self-healing scripts with Selenium. We also have the test runs for different versions or with different frameworks, not just Selenium but with Playwright as well. Additionally, there are real-time dashboards and notifications sent when tests fail or when we need screenshots or recordings of test executions, and we can easily integrate this into our pipelines. BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by providing an out-of-the-box solution for whole test executions across different projects for our automobile customers. We have worked on around twenty to thirty projects, and the need for a stable, customizable single test execution platform that supports different platforms has been met. It has helped manage the entire quality assurance of the product efficiently. The measurable improvements due to BrowserStack include a significant efficiency gain, allowing the whole team to collaborate on testing and communicate faster. Also, the easier integration with project management tools has been beneficial. The documentation of findings has improved, which helps us share insights with different project stakeholders.
JM
Director - Quality Engineering at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
Smart locators and small learning curve streamline test automation, minimizing maintenance and boosting efficiency.
Testim has a specific feature called a smart locator. Anyone experienced in test automation knows this is one of the most complex parts of developing automated scripts. The Testim feature automatically finds the locators, which helps us build stable test scripts. Stable scripts are crucial for receiving faster and more reliable feedback. I have also seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"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."
"BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by ensuring that we don't have any surprises, especially on smaller devices."
"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."
"The integration is very good."
"BrowserStack positively impacts my organization by saving time in the QA testing process and clarifying the mission, which is important."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"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 feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"I have seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"It is a highly stable solution."
 

Cons

"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."
"I think false positives are an area where BrowserStack can improve, as I have often seen things working fine on actual devices, but on BrowserStack devices, issues arise due to network slowness or AWS region connectivity problems that cause lag."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"One improvement I observe is that iOS automation is not feasible due to some configuration issues, although it serves as a great tool for cross-browser testing."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."
"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."
"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."
"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"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."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"The solution is not expensive."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."
"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
5%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise14
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise4
 

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 experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was good.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
I feel there is not much to improve about BrowserStack.
What do you like most about Testim?
The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Testim?
I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools.
What needs improvement with Testim?
More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Testim and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.