

BrowserStack and ZAPTEST are prominent solutions in software testing. BrowserStack has an edge in pricing and customer support, while ZAPTEST may offer a better feature set for advanced testing needs.
Features: BrowserStack offers extensive browser and device testing, an easy-to-use interface, and comprehensive mobile testing. ZAPTEST excels in automation features, such as script reusability, multi-platform testing, and object detection, making it robust for complex testing scenarios.
Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could improve its configuration setup for better flexibility, enhance automation features, and provide longer trial periods. ZAPTEST may benefit from a more user-friendly initial setup, better cloud integration, and improved user interface for smoother navigation.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack provides a cloud-based deployment simplifying setup and offers responsive support. ZAPTEST requires detailed integration but provides specialized support aligning with its deployment process.
Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack's pricing is typically cost-effective, focusing on quick ROI with scalable options. In contrast, ZAPTEST can have higher initial costs due to its extensive automation capabilities, promising substantial long-term ROI.
Pipeline executions that used to take eight hours have been reduced to one hour, enhancing continuous deployment and providing quicker feedback cycles.
I think its biggest benefit is how it integrates with our CI/CD, not necessarily giving access to developers for test devices.
I have seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, specifically a 50% reduction in human capacity.
BrowserStack customer support is excellent, with knowledgeable staff assisting throughout onboarding, setup, and understanding our needs to provide tailored solutions.
BrowserStack's scalability is enhanced by its auto-scaling capabilities on AWS.
They reproduce the same scenario, and then we create the bug ticket for them to fix.
BrowserStack is quite stable for me because it offers many different devices, is always up to date, and has a nice user interface with good user experience.
Sometimes there is slowness in the network, especially when working with AWS-based hosting.
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.
Going forward, one way BrowserStack could improve is by incorporating AI concepts to create tests automatically from provided URLs or user intentions, generating scripts without needing users to write automation scripts.
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.
pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month.
The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack. We get to run our automation against their full suite of devices, which alleviates the uplift of manual testing.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by helping us reduce the human capacity by 50%, with that reduction mostly being in manual testing efforts.
BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization primarily through time savings because it is very easy to use and replicates physical devices for testing, which is crucial since we usually do not have physical devices.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| BrowserStack | 8.1% |
| ZAPTEST | 1.1% |
| Other | 90.8% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 10 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 8 |
| Large Enterprise | 14 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 3 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 1 |
| Large Enterprise | 5 |
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.
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.