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

BrowserStack vs HeadSpin comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
HeadSpin
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
19th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Mobile APM (6th), Mobile App Testing Tools (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 11.4%, up from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of HeadSpin is 0.7%, down from 0.8% 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.
Saorabh Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
It fulfills everything from automation to manual performance
The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us, as well as the seamless connectivity with our automation suites. I am also pleased with the continuous enhancements made to HeadSpin. There have been many features added since we started using the product, and all of them are useful.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android 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."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"The integration is very good."
"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's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"The most valuable feature is that this is the first connected intelligence all-in-one platform."
"The initial setup of HeadSpin was very easy and user-friendly. It was easy to configure and write a script."
"It has an interesting feature called AV box testing. A lot of companies that are in the OTT segment don't really understand what their streaming is like. They can't test for streaming quality. There are restrictions where you cannot simulate live streaming. For example, on Netflix, you can't simulate how a movie is being streamed on a remote device. That's why HeadSpin has got this AV box testing feature. It is a patented feature. They send an AV box to your location, and you can test live streaming, which is something that no other company does."
"The technical support is really helpful because we can set up direct calls with them if we want to. We can use Zoom or Google Meet to interact with them directly, and if there is an issue in our system, they will help us by reproducing the issue in their machines and trying to figure out a solution. The support is really smooth, and we like that they're very supportive."
"The most valuable features of the product are the performance parameters it gives us."
"The most valuable feature of HeadSpin it's the integration with other solutions. It is great. I can search for an element or do a quick debugging on the application right on HeadSpin. It's very useful."
 

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."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"Support and pricing could be improved."
"HeadSpin needs to improve the hardware. With the mobile, the battery life reduces and must be continuously charged."
"They should automate their onboarding. A lot of things are still manual. They can create a video assistant or something like that to completely automate the entire process."
"If you want to do some testing or check the devices manually or check the application in a particular device manually, it is really laggy. That's a disappointment because sometimes we would like to do manual testing when our local devices are not available."
"HeadSpin could improve on the user interface because it is very poor. The checks that are done on the iOS devices are very difficult, but for Android, it runs great. For all iOS devices, the user interface and how it interacts with the device are very poor."
"Sometimes, devices go offline and some features are not functioning on some devices, specifically on iOS."
 

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."
"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"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."
"We have a yearly license for 16 devices."
"It has a yearly license. There is no other option. It is expensive. There are a lot of other cheaper players in the market, but it is like a Mercedes. You pay an extra premium for it, but you get the benefits. I would love to see them come up with project-based costing. Companies that are low on funds or new-age can do with pricing that is easily digestible. They can give them a pricing model for three months. They can provide a startup package."
"I believe the licensing cost is cheap because it's a total solution, hardware, license and software."
"It's not cheap, but there are a few different packages and different prices for enterprises with different product versions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Legal Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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?
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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Zynga, Tinder, Pinterest, Akamai, Microsoft, Airbnb, Jam City, TMobile, Mozilla, CNN, Cognizant, Yahoo!, ebay, Quora, Walmart, Kohls, Telstra
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. HeadSpin and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.