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

BrowserStack vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.7%, down from 11.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.0%, down from 5.2% 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.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"The integration is very good."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"Selenium integration."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
 

Cons

"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."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"The solution is slow."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"The integration tools could be better."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"The price is fine."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model."
"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
6%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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?
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...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature. Occasion...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.