BrowserStack Reviews

We use BrowserStack for testing on different platforms. It's a platform that allows us to test on different devices and platforms. We're using it as a regression tool and for testing on different devices.

We have some requests from our users telling us that something's not working with their device and it's easy to find the bug if the user is going to provide us the OS version and the device that they have. We can go to the specific device and OS version and check it out on our end. Without BrowserStack, it could be difficult to do.

BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from.

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.

There are times when the exact device does not exist with a specific iOS within BrowserStack. We're fully moving to iOS 15 and there are not many devices available with iOS 15. Those that are available are not available with other OS versions here.

It's good to have a custom setup but I understand that the testing starts with everything cleared, cookies, and incognito mode. In order to faster go through the SaaS process, it's better to have something with preset, such as when you visit the webpage on a certain date. This way, the testing is going to go faster for us. We would use it more extensively.

There are times when you're not clicking the right spot in your browser, such as the back button, and instead of using one within the browser window. We're testing a browser inside the browser and it could lead to some glitches, even though this is my mistake. I know it's my error. However, the user experience of the browser inside another browser could be improved. They could disable certain buttons or allow us to disable them.

I have used BrowserStack within the last 12 months.

There have been some stability issues.

We have plans to increase the usage of BrowserStack for visual testing in the future.

I have not used the support because I thought none of the bugs were experiencing would be something that could be fixed quickly.

We don't have the native BrowserStack application. We use the web application.  

We have evaluated Sauce Labs and the devices run faster but we most likely will still stick with BrowserStack. We are looking at moving to a different platform.

I would recommend others who want to use BrowserStack to see if they can receive a promotion period, at no cost, and test it out.

I rate BrowserStack an eight out of ten.

Approximately a year ago I would rate BrowserStack a six or seven out of ten because it was very buggy.

We decided to use BrowserStack to analyze how the device works.

BrowserStack is widely used across the market and has a large community. So if we have any questions on how to integrate it, we have a wide range of engineers we can ask. A competitor Sauce Labs, was very popular five years ago, but people are not as confident with that solution as they are with BrowserStack.

We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices. For example, Samsung mobile phones. Usually, you have to have a wide range of EL devices which is expensive for almost all applications in the hybrid model. Hybrid model applications mostly have problems with the latest devices and versions of operating systems. So, BrowserStack is ahead of the competition in regard to integration with the latest operating systems on mobile devices.

It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience. We want to see the EZT for testers that can be easily applicable to solutions. It has been done in AWS, where you open the AWS docs and can download to read all the information about the features and supported languages. This will make it more comfortable for those without experience with the integration.

Regarding additional features, we would like an EZT for testers that can be easily applicable to their solutions. It has been done in AWS, where we just open the AWS docs and can download all the information about features and supported languages.

BrowserStack is deployed on cloud, and we have ten people using this solution in my organization. We completed the deployment in-house.

We've used the latest version for two weeks of active usage.

There have been complaints about the stability of a test versus a BrowserStack, but no real proof of that, so it may be too early to rate the stability since we just started using the solution.

It is a scalable solution.

We have not needed technical support.

We have used Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, EZ2, and Java.

I rate the setup a four out of ten.

The pricing for BrowserStack is fine. However, I am not involved in the licensing decisions, so I do not have specific details.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. Regarding advice, using BrowserStack depends on your needs and budget; if it is suitable based on your needs and budget, proceed to use it.

I use BrowserStack for functional testing.

The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing.

BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster.

I have been using BrowserStack for approximately three months.

BrowserStack sometimes works well and other times it is very slow. The stability could improve.

We have 20 percent of our users in my company using BrowserStack.

I have not used technical support from BrowserStack.

I have not used another solution in the same category as BrowserStack.

The price of BrowserStack is high.

I rate the price of BrowserStack a three out of five.

I rate BrowserStack a seven out of ten.

Our primary use case is for browser testing.

The most valuable features are the variety of tools available.

Stability is a feature that needs to be improved. Some of the issues found in BrowserStack are not as consistent as desired. I would like to see clearer visibility.

I have been using BrowserStack for one year.

I would rate BrowserStack a seven on a scale of one to ten.

We deploy the solution on cloud.

The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable.

The solution can be improved by including local testing. We are struggling to do local testing because we are in the office, and we normally create issues when we test.

We have been using the solution for approximately one year and are currently using the latest version.

The solution is stable. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable. I rate it an eight out of ten. Five people in our organization currently utilize the solution.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support, and they are very fast with resolving our issues. I rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is easy, and we just need to log into BrowserStack and use a link that acts like a real browser or device. I rate it an eight out of ten.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by including local testing. I recommend that users consider implementing the solution because of its compatibility testing and nice concept.

I use BrowerStack for performing automation tests. 

The BrowserStack interface is easy to use and the webinar has a lot of information.

BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price.

I have been using BrowserStack for three years now.

I have found that BrowserStack is stable.

BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico.

The setup of BrowserStack was easy to implement.

It would be great if BrowserStack came with a downloadable mobile device option. The adoption of new tools on BrowserStack would be helpful. Playwright is one of these tools currently offered by Microsoft. I would rate BrowserStack a ten out of ten.

The user experience is really good. We can integrate other SaaS and other stuff, like the banking service SaaS.

I have run the wireless testing process. The optimization in optics is good, and it automatically works well.

There is room for improvement in pricing. 

I've used it for a project for around three months, mostly for credit confirmation.

It's stable. Many organizations go for the largest plan because it's stable.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. There's no lagging and jittering.

It is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup is easy. It's on the cloud, using real virtual devices.

With respect to pricing, they are a bit expensive. I would rate the licensing model a six out of ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap. So, the price could be a bit decreased.

Everyone has their own analysis. I advise them to analyze whether it's a good tool for their requirements before deploying it.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten because it's difficult to replicate the way we experience BrowserStack on the spot on our virtual device. But because of its growing functionalities and features, we can't shift to multiple devices, so we have to go for BrowserStack.

We switched to BrowserStack because we didn't have enough devices so we moved to a cloud-based solution. 

I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms. One of our clients had Ranorex which is a solution that has a problem with automation on regional devices. It also provides record and play functionalities. Our client proposed integration with BrowserStack but it's not available. I would like for both web applications to be linked. There should be a solution for mobile-based automation. 

It's very stable. 

I have contacted technical support two or three times. They are good but I don't understand the hierarchy. They initially answer with some documentation and then they escalate it. There should be the option to schedule a call with them because people can't always find the solution through the documentation. I would like for them to have direct calls with their clients. 

The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BPM tools there are online simple step tutorials. 

The deployment takes around two weeks. 

For small scale projects with 200-500 test cases involved, it is costly. But if it's a large project then it is much cheaper than purchasing real devices. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten considering how easy it is to set up. 

They should improve the query resolution. 

It is a good tool. We have multiple products that use it for automation.