We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and Sauce Labs based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Sauce Labs is the clear winner in this comparison. It is reliable, scales easily, and has a user-friendly dashboard. In addition, Sauce Labs has excellent customer support and its users report an impressive ROI.
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"The integration is very good."
"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 speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"So far, the stability has proven to be quite good."
"Our machines are mostly Windows. Being able to test with Safari, on a Mac, and other types of browser pieces without having to manage all the infrastructure is the biggest feature that our team enjoys."
"The most valuable feature is the cross-browser feature, it has many android and iOS devices both simulators and real devices. It's easy to integrate. I also like video recording too."
"Sauce Labs is optimized for automation and integration with the major CI/CD platforms and developer tools. We have an integration with App Center that we're working on. They have a storage API that lets us retrieve APK and IPA, iOS and Android builds off the phone, so that we can continue testing with CI/CD. They integrate with Jenkins, and Jenkins is the main CI/CD."
"Supplying devices to a testing team of possibly close to one thousand testers and developers is a great undertaking but Sauce Labs has made this very easy and a welcomed solution."
"They update for the latest browsers and mobile phones and support a lot of combinations. They have 1,000-plus desktop combinations and browser versions, which is really great. We need that at Applause. The all-in-one testing suite aspect of it is really important because most of our clients prefer to go to one place."
"The abundance of device, platform, and browser combinations/versions that can be used in parallel."
"The insights section provides a great overall state of the automation suite and can identify trends relatively quickly. If we see a dip in our passing rate over time, we can look at what changed when the test started failing to find the root cause rather than doing a quick fix to find that the test fails a short time later."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"The solution is slow."
"We have found that during automated testing this can be very slow. This causes inconsistencies with the tests. It's very difficult to rely on a service when you can't be sure if a test will pass or fail the next time it runs. This means building in a lot of sync time into the tests which in turn slows them down. If this speed could be improved then the service would be much better."
"One of the challenging areas for us is the reporting and the matrix. It should be based on roles, but right now it is only available for the admin role. The admin role can really do a lot of stuff, but our infrastructure team, which holds the admin role, is not ready to hand it over to us on the testing team. If Sauce Labs had permissions associated with roles, where this role could do this activity and that role could do that activity, it would be easier for us."
"Start execution time as each time a set of tests start, it will launch a new VM so it takes a bit of time."
"They should provide a JIRA integration plugin so that we can easily log issues."
"Every time that we run scenarios where we need to discover the geolocation of our customers, by default it shows as Palo Alto, California. That's a problem for us and we need a workaround for those cases... It would be helpful if we could enter a latitude and longitude into Sauce Labs configuration and say, "When you run a virtual Chrome device or an iPhone, make this your default location. Then, provide me that device so I can run my scenarios," because we have stores in different regions across the United States."
"Sauce Labs has room for improvement with its price point. Using a real mobile device, and having that dedicated to your team, costs more than actually purchasing a mobile device. We haven't tried the real devices yet. This is because of their price point."
"An image comparison would be a nice feature to include in the Sauce Labs product."
"The testing process is difficult. I need to prove the complete competency of the tool, and I am finding that challenging."
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while Sauce Labs is ranked 11th in Functional Testing Tools with 113 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while Sauce Labs is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sauce Labs writes "Robust documentation, helpful support representative, good licensing model". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca, CrossBrowserTesting and Bitbar, whereas Sauce Labs is most compared with Perfecto, LambdaTest, OpenText UFT One, Bitbar and Katalon Studio.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
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.