BrowserStack Reviews

My main use case for BrowserStack is to test things on real devices, hosted real devices and also to run automated tests on these devices to support multi-platforms, multiple different browsers, different platforms, and different devices. That is the use case we have to run tests.

A quick specific example of using BrowserStack for this kind of testing is when a big automobile company had a configurator for their vehicles, and we were using BrowserStack to test that the configuration of these vehicles can be done by customers on smaller mobile devices, iPads, or different laptops and platforms which the user uses. We also have the dashboards of the tests that were run on these devices.

The best features that BrowserStack offers include the ability to run manual and automated tests on real devices. We can create bugs, integrate it with other platforms like Jira or Azure, and use self-healing scripts with Selenium. We also have the test runs for different versions or with different frameworks, not just Selenium but with Playwright as well. Additionally, there are real-time dashboards and notifications sent when tests fail or when we need screenshots or recordings of test executions, and we can easily integrate this into our pipelines.

BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by providing an out-of-the-box solution for whole test executions across different projects for our automobile customers. We have worked on around twenty to thirty projects, and the need for a stable, customizable single test execution platform that supports different platforms has been met. It has helped manage the entire quality assurance of the product efficiently.

The measurable improvements due to BrowserStack include a significant efficiency gain, allowing the whole team to collaborate on testing and communicate faster. Also, the easier integration with project management tools has been beneficial. The documentation of findings has improved, which helps us share insights with different project stakeholders.

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. This could include natural language prompting for both test creation and insights from results.

While pricing for BrowserStack is acceptable, usability could improve with easier onboarding and understanding of features. An AI-driven chat interface could simplify managing the entire product using natural language instead of manual settings adjustments in various sections.

I have been using BrowserStack for approximately eight to nine years.

BrowserStack is stable.

BrowserStack's scalability is enhanced by its auto-scaling capabilities on AWS, allowing us to increase the number of parallel testing instances as needed.

BrowserStack customer support is excellent, with knowledgeable staff assisting throughout onboarding, setup, and understanding our needs to provide tailored solutions. I would rate the customer support an eight on a scale of one to ten.

Positive

Previously, we used LambdaTest but switched to BrowserStack for greater stability and performance, bolstered by excellent documentation and support.

The process of getting started and managing licenses was straightforward. BrowserStack provided the number of parallel users we wanted, such as five or ten, along with the number of parallel executions possible. Their documentation also made it easy to set up.

I have unique aspects about how I use BrowserStack because sometimes we had to use our own AWS deployment of it because we cannot use the deployed BrowserStack by itself. We used a closed API with AWS for that managed instance, having the CI/CD pipeline to run the tests on AWS pipelines. We hosted BrowserStack on AWS and auto-scaled as needed or managed images and observability, and everything is managed on AWS.

I have seen a return on investment with significant time savings. For instance, pipeline executions that used to take eight hours have been reduced to one hour, enhancing continuous deployment and providing quicker feedback cycles. This has proven vital for various projects needing parallel executions, making our deployment much faster and more reliable. Some measurable KPIs included the number of tests executed in parallel in one hour, the reduction of bugs, and managing hotfixes, which has decreased due to efficient testing and execution.

My experience with pricing was that it was a bit on the higher side, around three hundred dollars per user per month, and I hoped it could be reduced.

Before choosing BrowserStack, I evaluated alternatives including Selenium Grid, Selenium Box, Copado, and LambdaTest, and ultimately found BrowserStack to be superior to all these options.

We also use AWS Code Pipelines to integrate BrowserStack, triggering Selenium tests with it and executing test cases in parallel. This was one of the most important features to execute tests faster, along with automatically saving screenshots, logs, and videos on an S3 bucket for later use or analysis.

For others considering using BrowserStack, I advise that if your project involves complexities requiring continuous deployments or if you have a large test team, BrowserStack is a good choice, especially if you face flakiness in tests. It is great for well-documented and communicated results.

I give BrowserStack a rating of seven on a scale of one to ten. I rate it a seven because I have used it extensively for the last seven to eight years and see it as a good product. However, there are competitors in the market offering similar features, and BrowserStack needs to highlight more unique selling points. Although it has a good market share and stability, I believe there are improvements and features that could elevate it to a nine or ten.

My main use case for BrowserStack involves working on campaign testing for a healthcare product, where the application supports both Android and iOS devices for responsiveness and also supports the iPad device. We generally test three devices: for Android, we consider the Samsung S23, for iPhone, we choose iPhone 12, and for the iPad, we test on the latest iPad available on BrowserStack with both landscape and portrait views.

BrowserStack helps me handle challenges with device fragmentation or OS updates in my workflow through installation and uninstallation features. Whenever new updates come from Okta, we just update that. Additionally, when the application crashes or devices crash, BrowserStack provides multi-device testing; I just have to paste the URL in different devices, start different sessions, and it will be handled, allowing us to test everything simultaneously, which is really useful. The OS updates are automatically managed from Okta, so these things are well-handled.

In my day-to-day work, we generally do manual testing with BrowserStack, checking all UI components for responsiveness. The main purpose is to verify the responsiveness of our application, which includes checking the UI, mainly the fonts, alignment, margins, and all aspects to see how the content looks on different devices and how it fits within various screen sizes.

The best features that BrowserStack offers include both manual and automation testing; live devices reduce our real device availability. For automation, we utilize the Bellatrix framework integrated with BrowserStack, allowing it to run automatically on BrowserStack Android devices. I am mostly impressed with the automation because when I run everything, they provide logs and screenshots for each and every step, which is very helpful.

We are also using the AWS pipeline for generating reports on the automation side, where we set up AWS to easily get reports from BrowserStack and share them with all stakeholders automatically.

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. This saves us time, and when we test the application's UI and UX, it helps identify more bugs with different devices and sizes, improving the overall quality of the software.

One improvement I observe is that iOS automation is not feasible due to some configuration issues, although it serves as a great tool for cross-browser testing. However, specific iPad or iOS automation requires a lot of setup, and we need to find a way to simplify the configuration for iOS automation using BrowserStack.

Regarding needed improvements, I sometimes notice speed concerns where BrowserStack can be delayed in response, and from a security standpoint, some URLs are inaccessible, leading to potential security issues. While BrowserStack has almost everything, integrating a feature for test case execution would be beneficial, as it would reduce our manual test execution time.

I have been using BrowserStack for six years, since 2017. I continuously use BrowserStack for cross-browser testing, as the company provides a license for that, and we are using BrowserStack for all of our cross-browser testing.

My advice for others looking into using BrowserStack is to prefer it over physical device availability, as we mostly have two or three devices at most. BrowserStack offers numerous devices with different versions, allowing us to test our UI and perform responsive testing easily without manual setups on real devices and version updates.

I believe BrowserStack is a great tool that minimizes manual efforts, and I recommend it to everyone as it effectively addresses challenges associated with real devices. I would rate this product an eight out of ten.

My main use case for BrowserStack is to verify or develop features and then verify how they will work on different platforms, specifically iOS and Android, including versions 14, 13, and Android 16, with different screen resolutions.

For example, I run the application on a device in BrowserStack, then open the log files to verify if crashes will occur, so I understand how the application or my feature performs well on specific devices.

For instance, if I fix issues and need to verify, or if I receive a specific issue from customers, I try to install the application on the same device with a similar iOS version and attempt to replicate the issue.

BrowserStack offers many devices with different platforms. For example, if there is an available beta version for Android or iOS, you already have access to such platforms, and you can verify how it will work for future releases.

I use the feature of testing on beta versions in my workflow all the time, checking how the application works on the pre-release build, and our QA people also verify and perform regression testing using the pre-release build on specific devices through BrowserStack.

BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by saving money that would be spent on buying new devices. For instance, if there are many developers in the company, buying each new device costs more than subscribing to BrowserStack where you get access to many devices.

I think a possible improvement for BrowserStack could be adding features such as sending SMS or making FaceTime calls because, as far as I know, those features are not available at the moment. Additionally, it could be useful to attach some virtual phone numbers for specific devices and also consider integrating Apple Pay payments to verify how the application works on those platforms.

I would see such features on BrowserStack. I know there are many options such as virtual credit cards, virtual phone numbers, or virtual Apple Pay or Google Pay, and it is possible, but I do not know why BrowserStack still has not implemented them.

I have been using BrowserStack for more than ten years.

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.

Before choosing BrowserStack, I evaluated another platform called Device Anywhere and also one more service, but I cannot recall the name of that service.

As I mentioned before, some of our customers use specific devices with specific iOS versions, for example, iOS 16. Currently, I do not use this iOS 16, and if I need to replicate an issue, I install the build on this iOS version and verify the issue.

I do not know what device to suggest for others looking into using BrowserStack, but I think an iPhone 17 could be an option.

I chose nine out of ten because, as I said, if BrowserStack could enable making FaceTime calls and sending virtual SMS or facilitating Apple Pay payments, that would make it a perfect ten for me. I gave this review a rating of nine out of ten.

My main use case for BrowserStack is testing different browsers and different devices such as Android, iOS, tablet, and phone, as well as Firefox and Chromium devices.

A specific example of how I use BrowserStack in my day-to-day work is whenever we create a new landing page in any of our projects. Currently, we have an agreement with an insurance company called Acris, so I use BrowserStack to test the UI elements first to see if they are appropriate for all device sizes, starting from the big screens down to the smaller screens, then the phones and tablets. After that, I start working on whether these UI elements are functioning correctly, and after the design testing is finished, I start working on the functional part.

BrowserStack provides an opportunity for testers to be able to test scenarios on a lot of different devices, which makes it valuable to use.

The best features that BrowserStack offers include the fact that, unlike Sauce Labs which I used previously and had some non-real devices, BrowserStack allows us to test on real devices, and you can see all the devices are real as you do your testing.

Using real devices on BrowserStack makes a difference for my testing compared to emulators or simulators because with emulators, sometimes it is not the real case, but I am sure of how the web element or my hook is going to work on a real device in BrowserStack.

BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by ensuring that we don't have any surprises, especially on smaller devices. I test the UI elements first in BrowserStack, and most web applications are created by using big screen sizes, but in real life, most people are using smaller screens, so we need to be sure that everything in our application works as expected on smaller screens as well.

I need to think about how BrowserStack can be improved. If your application is more adapted to tools like Jira, Trello, or Monday, it will be more widely used by testers in my opinion.

I have been using BrowserStack for more than five years.

BrowserStack is stable.

Whenever I find anything in BrowserStack, I tell the developer, and then the developer goes into BrowserStack. We only have one account which is shared by all the development team, and they reproduce the same scenario, and then we create the bug ticket for them to fix.

I never used the customer support for BrowserStack. I always use it by myself since I know the crucial parts.

Positive

In my previous company, we used Sauce Labs, and here we are using BrowserStack because it is the company's choice, not mine.

I am not sure which cloud provider we use for BrowserStack because I did not do the setup, but in our company, we are using GCP servers, so most probably it could be Google Cloud.

My company does not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.

I have seen fewer bug reports since using BrowserStack because I have created the bug reports by using it. We use Jira for bug reporting, and I am using it very quickly, testing first the UI part and the design to see if it fits every screen size, and also using different devices such as Windows, Android, and iOS. If I don't find anything, I give it a go and we release the product.

I don't handle the pricing, setup cost, or licensing for BrowserStack, as I'm just using it as a tester and I don't have the permission or authority to set up or purchase licenses.

I advise others looking into using BrowserStack to use it for cross-browser testing and multi-dimensional testing, and they can also use it for different devices because it is better than using emulators or simulators since these are real devices. My review rating for BrowserStack is seven out of ten.

The main use case for me using BrowserStack, which I have been doing for four years, is mostly around testing solutions supported for older devices and operating systems, such as iPhone 8 or iOS 12, especially for applications used by customers who do not have the most recent devices in the market and are still using Internet Explorer or earlier versions of Edge. This helps provide us devices and browsers for those legacy solutions.

When using BrowserStack for those legacy devices and browsers, the process typically involves using it for both manual and automation testing, allowing us to utilize APM as well as Selenium in both ways.

The best features BrowserStack offers for us include App Live, which has really helped us; the quick availability of real-time devices as soon as new ones are launched, such as when iPhone 17 was released; integration with project management tools including Jira and Slack, which is very handy; and access to network logs, something we have made good use of.

From a productivity standpoint, the integration with the wider ecosystem of project management tools has the biggest impact for us, specifically with Jira and Slack, as it helps us log tickets and bugs directly, providing evidence for the tickets we are logging. This was much slower before, especially when dealing with flaky applications or newly live releases that have numerous problems. The integration helps us quickly log bugs using the evidence provided by BrowserStack.

BrowserStack has positively impacted our organization by improving collaboration and showing quality improvements in releases, with the number of defects leaking into production significantly reduced.

We track two metrics: the number of bugs leaking to production per application and the number of customer support issues reported. We have seen a reduction of close to 20 to 25% in defects compared to past releases. When we started using BrowserStack, release four had about 150 bugs reported compared to 200 in release three. Incidents reported by end customers have also seen a reduction.

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.

In addition to false positives and network slowness, feature improvements could include monitoring dashboards or consolidated dashboards for multiple releases across different domains, allowing us to see runs scheduled and link us to reports of passed and failed cases.

I have been using BrowserStack for a total period of close to four years across two organizations.

BrowserStack is mostly stable for our needs, though sometimes there is slowness in the network, especially when working with AWS-based hosting.

Currently, BrowserStack's scalability for our organization meets our needs as we have relatively limited use cases, and so far what we have scaled has worked fine for us.

I have not had to interact with BrowserStack's customer support team, as most issues were addressed locally.

Before using BrowserStack, we had used LambdaTest and physical devices as our prior solutions.

We have definitely seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, particularly in tracking the value realized per automated test case and time savings in testing apps across multiple clouds, browsers, and operating systems, leading to money savings since we previously had many resources engaged in that.

The setup cost and licensing were handled at the enterprise level, as our bank is a large organization, and these central negotiations were managed by the finance team, so I have limited exposure to that.

Before choosing BrowserStack, we mostly evaluated LambdaTest as an option.

We have a local version of BrowserStack for direct access, and we also access BrowserStack from AWS EC2 machines, providing us with both kinds of interactions available.

My advice for others looking into using BrowserStack is to evaluate options, perform an ROI calculation beforehand, and identify the specific use cases BrowserStack excels at, as this will lead to a much higher ROI return for your organization rather than using it for everything, including manual testing. I would rate my overall experience with BrowserStack an 8 out of 10.

BrowserStack is used for mobile testing.

I work in web technology for logistics with BrowserStack.

The environment I work in with BrowserStack is enterprise level.

Some of the best features with BrowserStack include the ability to inspect network traffic, and the device farm is nice. They offer using two devices at once, but it's a tier that we don't pay for.

Cross-browser compatibility testing is important for my organization and I think it's essential for all organizations since they don't necessarily control the platforms that their clients access their services from.

BrowserStack's wide array of real devices and browsers has helped us address the need for devices, but we don't use them for web testing. I have used BrowserStack for live interactive testing, and it has helped identify and resolve errors during development processes.

It gives me access to devices that I don't have to purchase, which is nice. Being able to manually use a real device, or alleged real device, becomes important because there's a huge difference between testing on a simulator, emulator, and testing on real devices due to how apps get packaged and how things get moved around during the packaging.

I don't really test the feature that simulates various network conditions too much, but it has definitely come in handy. I generally would use something more a proxy, such as Charles, if I'm doing something that. I have the ability to manually do that on the devices that I have locally, so I wouldn't really do latency tests with connectivity speeds across the wide array of devices that they have.

They have an API, which is super helpful, and it is integrated into our pipeline, which helps because that's where our automated tests run. 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. This speeds up regressions, which speeds up our deployment process, allowing us to get updates to customers faster.

In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things that they don't give you access to, which is understandable. However, being able to have more granular access to the OS would be a good feature.

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.

The amount of what LambdaTest has to offer for their price point seems to be a better financial choice for any company at this point. I haven't used LambdaTest yet; we are exploring options with other providers at this time, and LambdaTest has been the only one that's provided any kind of cost-saving benefit while not losing any of the functionality that we expect to have with these products.

BrowserStack is really expensive, which is super annoying. Anytime you want something new, it costs an exorbitant amount. We just attempted to increase our seats and they wanted almost double what we were paying, which was insane because it wasn't double the seats. Companies need to make money, but they also need to work with their customers because otherwise, they'll lose them to competitors like LambdaTest who offer similar services for significantly less.

I haven't had any issues with their customer service, so I would rate them around a 7.5 or 8.

Positive

The initial setup with BrowserStack is actually pretty straightforward. We use WDIO, which you can integrate the capabilities directly into your WDIO configuration file. We wrote some bespoke code that does some checking of BrowserStack threads and stuff that they open up via their CLIs, so it's pretty simple to integrate. I'm going to be exploring how these other services compare in terms of integration.

There is some return on investment because it saves us time during regressions and allows developers to access real devices without having to purchase them. However, I don't think the cost point and how much devices cost versus what we get out of BrowserStack is necessarily equal. I think its biggest benefit is how it integrates with our CI/CD, not necessarily giving access to developers for test devices.

I have recently pushed to allow our operations team to get access so when they talk to customers, they're able to access devices and try to recreate the scenario they're experiencing. This is beneficial, but I believe LambdaTest also offers similar features like App Live and App Automate.

Regarding time savings during regression, that's a tough question. It really depends on the regression. For instance, if 80% of the functionality is tested via automation, then I only have to do 20% manual testing. If a full regression takes a week, I only have to do 20% of that due to the automated tests. However, I still need to go manually verify when conducting a full regression because buttons can exist but still look really weird. It's not simple to do visual testing in line with functional testing, so I lose that benefit; hence, I must manually verify all the pages and navigation.

In the start of my career, I performed functional testing on mobile devices and web applications, and I used BrowserStack for testing web applications and mobile applications for one year.

My main use case for BrowserStack was cross-browser testing and integrating it with Selenium to test my functional test cases on web applications and mobile apps.

For example, in a test case to log in to a web application, using BrowserStack allowed me to identify local elements in my UI, making it very easy to automate those elements, considering the login tests for a basic web application. I recorded that test and integrated it with Selenium in my local environment to automate that overall test on both the web application and mobile application.

I mostly integrated Selenium with GitHub Actions, so whenever a new commit occurs, I can rerun all the tests I have written using BrowserStack on the Selenium framework in my IDE.

Most of my use cases involve manual plus automated testing, and BrowserStack provides real cloud devices, which is very useful when someone does not have a real device or mobile device. It allows us to test our web applications and mobile applications virtually, and the features for creating screenshots and videos are very beneficial for creating manual test cases. I can record those test cases in my browser and easily upload them to Jira for others to automate them or review them quickly.

The ability to record and share those screenshots and videos definitely makes the tickets and use cases clearer. For instance, in a scenario to log in to a web application and perform functional testing, I can take screenshots or record video, which simplifies report generation and saves time for both developers and QA.

BrowserStack positively impacts my organization by saving time in the QA testing process and clarifying the mission, which is important.

I don't have exact numbers, but it's clear that when someone new joins my team, handing over a Jira ticket with video recordings and screenshots significantly clarifies the mission and saves a lot of time for the new developer or a product manager wanting to review the overall functionalities of our web application.

Improvements for BrowserStack could include better usability when working under a private network or a VPN, since it can be challenging to access restricted URLs. There are times when running an automation test that the loaded elements aren't reliable, which can lead to frustrations stemming from inconsistent results.

Apart from restricted URL access under VPN and inconsistent results, I don't recall exact numbers on pricing, but it varies depending on the use case and could definitely be better.

The suggestions for BrowserStack improvements I have highlighted mainly concern integrations.

I have been working for the last five years as a DevOps Engineer.

From my experience, BrowserStack has been mostly stable. I did not encounter any reliability or downtime issues during the time I used it.

As for scalability, I have not tested it at that level, as our usage has been confined to automating manual test cases for our internal team without facing significant scalability concerns.

I have not reached out to customer support, so I have not experienced any issues from their side.

Negative

I wasn't using any other solution related to BrowserStack as it was the first tool I used for automating browser and mobile testing.

Before choosing BrowserStack, I did not evaluate other options. I had been using Selenium for a long time and came across BrowserStack, saw some functionalities, and decided to use it directly.

Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing, I don't remember exact pricing, but due to the size of my organization, it was not a significant issue. The setup cost is not substantial, as subscribing directly through AWS Marketplace is quite seamless and licensing is also handled smoothly through AWS.

While I don't have precise metrics, I can say that with our QA team of five members, we were able to record functional tests much faster, accomplishing what sometimes took five days within one to two days, effectively reducing our time by around fifty percent for recording manual test cases.

I purchased BrowserStack through the AWS Marketplace.

For anyone looking into using BrowserStack, I would advise that if you are a QA wanting to automate tests or record some tests, make reports or videos, or if you are a product manager providing QA with Jira tickets, BrowserStack is a solid choice for your work.

Overall, BrowserStack is a great product that I have utilized a lot during my early years as a QA.

I think this interview format is very good, and I have no suggestions for change.

I would appreciate a short poem or haiku that summarizes my review. My review rating for this product is eight out of ten.

My main use case for BrowserStack is automating some of the test cases. A quick specific example of a test case I automate with BrowserStack is some of the application URLs.

BrowserStack has helped us with automating our test cases by reducing the time by almost 60%. The best features BrowserStack offers include giving us an automated way to simulate different browsers or devices, and I mostly use the browser simulation features. BrowserStack has positively impacted my organization by helping us reduce the human capacity by 50%, with that reduction mostly being in manual testing efforts.

I feel there is not much to improve about BrowserStack.

I have been using BrowserStack for a year now.

BrowserStack is stable.

I have had no issues with BrowserStack's scalability so far.

The customer support for BrowserStack is great.

Before choosing BrowserStack, I did not evaluate other options.

I have seen a return on investment with BrowserStack, specifically a 50% reduction in human capacity.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was good.

My advice for others looking into using BrowserStack is to consider purchasing via AWS Marketplace if the purchase price is high. I would rate this review a 10.

I use the solution in my company for business transformation, specifically for IT business transformation projects where a customer wants to transfer their legacy applications to the cloud and modernize them using mobile apps. My company takes enterprise-level applications to the cloud.

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.

I have been using BrowserStack for five years. I am a user of the tool.

Earlier, my company used to use Keynote Device Anywhere and OpenDev. My company moved from our previous products to BrowserStack since a lot of people use it. My company also found BrowserStack to have a lot of advantages over our previous tools.

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. 

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.

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.

I use the solution for performance testing.

The issue with the product stems from the fact that when we try to do a single or multiple login on multiple browsers for simulation in scenarios where users use Chrome, Mozilla, and Edge, all browsers are open at the same time, and login has to be done separately. My company has added a minimum of two and a maximum of five users to the license. In my company, when all of us start device testing at the same time, one of the devices stops working, or some slowness or lag happens. There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required.

I have experience with BrowserStack.

It is a scalable solution.

My company connected with the technical staff of the product when we were having issues connecting and uploading IPF files for Apple devices; after having a conversation with the support staff of BrowserStack, our company's issues related to the product resolved since we only needed some licenses from iOS. After the issues were resolved by the support team, my company was good to go with the product. The technical support team is very good since they immediately respond and resolve our company's issues.

I rate the support team a nine out of ten.

Positive

The setup phase of the product was quite easy, and it is a very user-friendly application, which I found to be very useful.

Though I knew about some other products in the market, I chose BrowserStack since I wanted it for device testing.

My company was working with Push Notifications, and we tested it on multiple devices. My company works with BrowserStack since it provides accessibility and helps the area of load testing to see the responses to a load from our end to check whether it is visible in that particular second or not.

I integrate BrowserStack into web or app testing workflows. My company uses an IPF file or APK file, which we use to install applications on the devices in BrowserStack, after which we do the load testing.

The product helps with cross-browser testing since our company's applications are open source, so we use a link to open such applications on different devices.

My company has also used the product for version testing to see which Android versions support our company's applications. The product has made accessibility easy for my company.

BrowserStack helped improve the quality of our company's applications, especially in the areas of accessibility and resolutions. For UI purposes, it is very good. UI and version support are important since some of the features are not supported on lower versions of the Android application. Some of my company's applications are not supported in a higher version of Android application. The aforementioned issues were resolved on different device systems with the help of BrowserStack.

The real device testing and simulation offered by the product work, but I have seen a small difference between the responses I received from both. With the product, my company gets instant messages or instant installation of applications along with procedures on a real device, but the simulation takes some seconds more or extra time than the area of real device testing.

The tool does improve the quality of our company's products since we have checked it on different devices and resolutions, after which we have seen that we have improved in many areas, including our actual applications. In general, the product does improve the devices.

BrowserStack has a feature that allows the automation of uploading and downloading HAR files, but I have never used it.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.