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

Appvance AIQ Platform vs BrowserStack comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Appvance AIQ Platform
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
30th
Ranking in AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (49th), Performance Testing Tools (21st), Load Testing Tools (23rd), Regression Testing Tools (16th), Test Automation Tools (32nd)
BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Appvance AIQ Platform is 0.6%, down from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of BrowserStack is 11.4%, up from 10.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user129477 - PeerSpot reviewer
Jul 23, 2015
Network Emulation allows for performance testing of geographically-distributed users.
It is a great performance testing tool. The most valuable feature of the tool is its Avatar technology. Scripting is really fast, compared to other tools. It works for almost all major protocols, platforms and browsers. It makes complex scenarios simple, and we need minimal custom coding. It also provides features for Network Emulation, which is quite helpful in testing the performance for geographically-distributed users. Appvance can provide information from end to end (back-end and front-end), which makes it surpass other tools. The tool provides protocol level as well as browser level response time. And it can be integrated with major monitoring tools. As it is a web-based tool, it makes it easy to access anywhere anytime. All the team members can access the common information easily.
ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
Mar 28, 2024
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"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."
"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."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"The price is fine."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
14%
Insurance Company
10%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.
 

Also Known As

Appvance
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, Bell Canada, CBS, UBC, PepsiCo, 7-11, BenefitVision, Kabbage, Catalent Pharmaceuticals, McKesson, Veritas, Cherwell, QAT Global, Sony, SiriusXM, CoPart, Auto Parts Alliance, PPD
Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, BrowserStack and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.