BrowserStack vs. TestComplete

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
BrowserStack is a test platform built for developers and QAs to expand test coverage, scale and optimize testing with cross-browser, real device cloud, accessibility, visual testing, test management, and test observability. BrowserStack states it currently powers over a billion tests a year for customers who include Amazon, Paypal, Well Fargo Bank, Nvidia, MongoDB, Pfizer, GE, Discovery, React JS, Apache, JQuery and several others rely on BrowserStack to test their web and mobile apps.
$0
per month Unlimited users and 5000 free screenshots
TestComplete
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
TestComplete is a GUI test automation tool that enables users of all skill levels to test the UI of every desktop, web, and mobile application. TestComplete is best suited for testers, automation engineers, and QA teams in any industry.
$2,256
per license
Pricing
BrowserStackTestComplete
Editions & Modules
Percy - Free
$0
per month Unlimited users and 5000 free screenshots
App Percy - Free
$0
per month 5000 free screenshots and 100 minutes of infrastructure
Test Observability - Unlimited Free
$0
Accessibility Testing - Free
$0
Test Observability - Observability Pro
$0.01
per month per test execution
Percy - Desktop
$0.02
per month per screenshot
App Percy - Visual Core
$0.02
per month per screenshot
Percy - Desktop & Mobile
$0.02
per month per screenshot
App Percy - Visual Cloud
$0.03
per month per screenshot
Live - Desktop
$29
per month per user
Live - Desktop & Mobile
$39
per month per user
App Live - Individual
$39
per month per user
Automate - Desktop
$129
per month 1 parallel test
Live - Team
$150
per month 5 users
App Live - Team
$150
per month 5 users
Automate - Desktop & Mobile
$199
per month 1 parallel test
App Automate - Device Cloud
$199
per month 1 parallel test
App Live - Team Pro
$199
per month 5 users
Accessibility Testing - Team
$199
per month 5 users
App Automate - Device Cloud Pro
$249
per month 1 parallel test
Automate - Enterprise
Contact sales team
Percy - Enterprise
Contact Sales
App Automate - Enterprise
Contact Sales
App Live - Enterprise
Contact sales team
Live - Enterprise
Contact sales team
App Automate - Device Cloud Pro + Visual Cloud
Contact Sales
App Percy - Enterprise
Contact Sales
Test Observability - Enterprise
Contact Sales
Accessibility Testing - Enterprise
Contact Sales
Node-Locked Base
2,256
per license
Node-Locked Pro
3,950
per license
Float - Base
5,077
per license
Float - Pro
7,901
per license
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
BrowserStackTestComplete
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsPay for only the modules needed. TestComplete Pro includes all three modules: desktop, web, and mobile, at a bundled price point, as well as access to the parallel testing engine, TestExecute. TestComplete has additional add-ons, including TestExecute and the Intelligent Quality Add-On.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
BrowserStackTestComplete
Considered Both Products
BrowserStack
Chose BrowserStack
When it comes to cross-device testing, or what can be said as Live testing, BrowserStack is the best tool for testing with different devices with different OSs at a time. It gives users the liberty to test on iPhone, iPad, or Android devices and check the UI on all different …
Chose BrowserStack
It's easy to use, Cost effective and Reliable.
Chose BrowserStack
Both tools are good and we are suing both for better testing.
Chose BrowserStack
Screen reader capability in the mobile and Tablet devices
Chose BrowserStack
Nothing else actually. BrowserStack was recommended to me as the best, simplest, go-to solution. I found it to be very user friendly and satisfied my requirements, so I was happy to stick with it and did not go elsewhere looking for anything else. This experience has been more …
Chose BrowserStack
BrowserStack provides User-friendly UI which helps me to easily use the tool and also configuration via code is easy, we have to just add the config JSON and update the devices there on which we want to automate. Realtime view of the app is a plus point, reporting is also there.
Chose BrowserStack
I haven't used any tool so I cannot rate any other tool. BrowserStack was the first tool we selected for our proof of concept and we liked it. We found some limitations and we reported those to BrowserStack and now they have added it in their roadmap to fix it. So overall, we …
Chose BrowserStack
I found Browserstack's website very informative and their documentation much more detailed than the other products I tried to explore. Also one more aspect where Browserstack stood out for me for other similar vendors is that they provide a 100 minute free trial for any newly …
Chose BrowserStack
SauceLabs was not intuitive. The launch response time was too high. It didn't offer flexibility in debugging, and the other testing features were not easily available.
Chose BrowserStack
Only other thing we have used is local simulators.
Chose BrowserStack
More devices , more features and easy to use
Chose BrowserStack
Our department manager ultimately decided to go with BrowserStack as they offered more real-world devices in their cloud than LambdaTest.
Chose BrowserStack
We did a benchmark to compare multiple criterias: Security, reliability, Sound, Variety of devices, availability of devices, how long before new released devices are made available, easy to use, extra features, customer support, company reference, integration with our tools. …
Chose BrowserStack
The ease of BrowserStack usage is very good compared to other tools like LambdaTest. For each application or use case BrowserStack has solutions. What I think is when It comes to integrations with test automation frameworks BrowserStack can be improved and it needs to improve. …
Chose BrowserStack
TestRail, very configurable in fields and how test case mgmt can be configured.
Chose BrowserStack
BrowserStack by far is still the best tool we have for mobile and accessibility testing.
Chose BrowserStack
UI of the BrowserStack is little bit better that other market competitors, and also it is little bit faster that other tools which are available in the market.
BrowserStack also provides lots of real devices almost every device which are in the markets, other tools are not …
Chose BrowserStack
accessiBE is an accessibility only tool that cannot replicate browsers or devices. LambdaTest is comparable, however, after assessing the feature set, ultimately we decided BrowserStack was a better fit for our business. LambdaTest does have features that will meet most …
TestComplete
Chose TestComplete
SonarQube and Visual Studio Test Professional
Chose TestComplete
We still use both products in our company, since Postman is mainly used for backend automation and TestComplete for frontend automation. The difference is that via Postman you can easily write tests that send different requests to your server, get the response, and compare them …
Chose TestComplete
I have evaluated Tricentis Tosca and another product along with TestComplete. TestComplete is much better [and more] user friendly.
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases …
Chose TestComplete
For their special field (API & web testing) I choose those products over TestComplete
Chose TestComplete
Below are the points why we selected TestComplete 1. Better UI. 2. Plenty of validation cases supports i.e. checkpoints. 3. Multiple scripting languages. 4. Better accuracy and robustness. 5. Good documentation and Video tutorials. 6. Great support team.
Chose TestComplete
Based on my evaluation regards to the product cost, useability, the TestComplete came first on my selections.
Chose TestComplete
TestStand is a much more complex tool than TestComplete and it's for a little bit different solutions I think. For desktop apps I would use the TestComplete, For Mobile / Web -> Python + Behave + Pytest selenium - TestComplete is much overcomplicated and slow! For …
Chose TestComplete
The major advantage over other tools is the ease of use. A chimp will be able to figure out TestComplete whereas the others require extensive coding knowledge
Chose TestComplete
I know from using other tools in the past years that TestComplete could be more cost-effective, yet still get the job done.
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete is more complete than Cypress.io because Cypress.io is only used to complete end-to-end testing for web apps. These two tools are user friendly and easy to use. For the needs of our company, we have chosen TestComplete for the variety of testing applications.
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete is a robust test automation tool and not for someone who expects to just record and playback. This can be done with [TestComplete], but the strength of the tool is the ability to code complex actions and capturing of objects. The reporting of results is also …
Chose TestComplete
It has been almost 5 years since we researched products, but TestComplete gave us the best overall advantage to achieve our goals. So, that is why we chose it.
Chose TestComplete
It's been a long time so it may not be a fair assessment, but I don't recall IBM's product being as easy to use or have as many features.
Chose TestComplete
We used before the Coded UI Tests which are in Visual Studio / Azure DevOps, and the tests were impossible to maintain and very very flaky. Then in 2015, we selected TestComplete, as it was clearly the tool with the most feature for desktop UI testing. Selenium was …
Chose TestComplete
We are using Katalon for web-based applications, mainly because our QA engineers have a strong experience with it. But it does not allow precise item identification in Delphi-based applications and that was a show stopper for us. Having received recommendations for …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete was selected after trying multiple product offerings. Initially these product offerings were installed with trail keys, and various factors were weighted and sized based on complexity to install, and ease of use. TestComplete scored higher than any other product …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete gives the best option of record and playback. Also, it does not have any problem with object recognition just like Selenium.

Selenium needs more manual efforts in selecting the object properties and utilizing them. Also, Selenium needs a good command of one coding …
Chose TestComplete
TestComplete stacks up because its UI is easier to use than that of Ranorex Studio.
Chose TestComplete
We aren't 100% sure that we will stick with TestComplete for our web-based UI testing for the long haul because Selenium is a bit lighter on the overhead front, but we definitely really like it for testing our standalone applications and utilities. As far as a complete testing …
Chose TestComplete
We use TestExecute together with TestComplete. The ease of use is one of the reasons we have stuck with it for years now. Developers are satisfied due to the time saved with this tool. If you are still hesitating—don’t. We try to find the replacement, but so far can’t because …
Best Alternatives
BrowserStackTestComplete
Small Businesses
TestComplete
TestComplete
Score 8.0 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
Enterprises
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.1 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
BrowserStackTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
7.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.4
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Usability
5.5
(0 ratings)
7.8
(0 ratings)
Availability
9.8
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
2.2
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
6.1
(0 ratings)
6.6
(0 ratings)
In-Person Training
7.3
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Online Training
4.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
8.1
(0 ratings)
6.7
(0 ratings)
Configurability
7.5
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.8
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
BrowserStackTestComplete
Likelihood to Recommend
Multiple real devices available for testing across different OS, platform and browsers for both website and mobile application testing. Automate help to integrate existing project and testing suite to run across different devices. This reduce testing timeline and allow us to quickly release new features to users. Also provide automated accessibility report.
Read full review
Best suited to smaller unit test or tests broken up, couple of forms at a time Not suited - larger regressions test involving multiple systems. - my main regression involving payments has been unsuccessful for the last 3 years despite all working fine separately and while being watched
Read full review
Pros
  • UI testing on different Devices like iOS, Android, MacOS, and Windows OS.
  • Automation testing with the help of Cypress gives automation access to different OS and devices.
  • Comparison with two devices how UI will look a like.
  • Bug Capture tool: Using this tool, a user can capture a bug while live recording it, and the tool captures action as well. This helps developers identify and fix the bug more easily.
Read full review
  • TestComplete is great for working with our non-web applications.
  • TestComplete allows us to interface with our web application in a robust way.
  • Despite the age of our architecture, TestComplete handles the old stuff that's been around a while as well as the newer technology when we are able to implement it.
Read full review
Cons
  • I wish it didn't time out so quickly. I often move back and forth between my native Mac OS system and browsers to BrowserStack for Windows browsers and it often times out so I have to start over.
  • I am not sure why, but when I've been testing in BrowserStack for a long period of time - maybe over a couple of hours, it sometimes gets buggy and unresponsive or slow to respond. It makes it hard to tell if I'm experiencing an issue with the site I'm testing or if it's an issue with BrowserStack.
  • If I'm wishing for the moon and stars, I'd ask for the ability to use BrowserStack to also test with JAWS screen reader. But I'm happy having NVDA.
Read full review
  • Would love to see TC be a plugin for Visual Studio. Instead of VBScript or JavaScript, to use C# or VB.NET
  • Easier to set up with iOS. Android is not bad but iOS seems slow and confusing to get up and running
  • Built-in PDF reading support, built in Excel API
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
It's simply a must-have tool. As a designer, I have to ensure my work is at least functional in older browsers. I also have to ensure that, when I design for mobile devices, any differences between platforms aren't problematic. BrowserStack allows me to test my work in a fraction of the time, with a whole lot more accuracy.
Read full review
We have bigger test automation pack using test complete at the same time we also think this is not good performing tool for large number of test automation scripts.
Read full review
Usability
It integrates directly in internal networks and local development. The point and click interface of choosing your device, pick the browser/version and you have a working emulation of that exact environment. What else could you ask for? I've set our least computer savvy users up with BrowserStack for testing in minutes. It feels like it's just part of your local environemnt.
Read full review
It is usable when you become accustomed to its quirks. Not using it for two months and then you need to re-learn the quirks for some features (but some quirks are so awful that they will never fade from your memory). So, when using it regularly, it is possible to be quite productive, if no big correction in name mapping is needed.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
I rated BrowserStack's availability a 10 because it is consistently reliable, with minimal to no downtime or unplanned outages. The platform is accessible whenever needed, ensuring uninterrupted testing. Its robust infrastructure and proactive monitoring ensure a seamless experience, allowing us to meet deadlines without delays caused by availability issues and all
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
The tests are fast considering the fact that they're Appium tests. I've seen tests reliably pass or fail when they're supposed to, with next to zero issues on the BrowserStack side of things. Tests launch only seconds after I kick off them off from my CLI.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
I'm saying a 10 for support for BrowserStack only based on feedback from the development team. I myself have never had to reach out to support for any questions or issues, but others in the company have. From my conversations with them, the support was fantastic and had been a pleasure working with the BrowserStack team.
Read full review
Some bugs were quickly resolved, but most UX quirks of the tool are just marked "as designed". No follow up for enhancement request.
Read full review
In-Person Training
Yes, it was online training on meet, and trainer looks like skilled and technical strong, he has covered end to end all the features and he has answers all the queries. because of this trainings we are able to implement it by our own in the organization, thank you for support and training.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Online Training
It was a quick training from the support of browserstack, it was nice and easy to understand, thanks again for the support given by the team. and regularly I used to receive mails for training from support for any new feature they launch, I was able to spread same training to all my team and dev.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
I rated the implementation satisfaction an 8 because while it went smoothly overall, there were some challenges during the initial learning phase and integration with existing tools. Key insights include the importance of providing sufficient training upfront and ensuring seamless integration with other systems to minimize disruptions and improve adoption speed.
Read full review
If you develop a mobile application and your testing process goes in cloud, probably you will face a problem - how to implement a stable connection between your mobile devices and testing servers
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
N/A - BrowserStack was the first software I've tried to address these requirements. Previously we've been limited to testing on a handful of devices and browser combinations that our team has physical access to. We're also evaluating Litmus as a complementary service to BrowserStack for analysing our email templates and deliverability.
Read full review
TestComplete stacks up against them in terms of GUI and seamless performance. It records each and every step and action been performed in the application and produces a detailed report in a well-structured manner. It can connect and access seamlessly among various databases directly to speed up the testing process.
Read full review
Scalability
I may not be the best person to answer this as I am only using it for 1 department and at 1 site but will still try my best As far as Scalability for Devices for Mobile Automation is concerned, it gets a Solid 10, as the users can run cases on upto 10 device parallel and also have the best choices of devices to choose
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
  • It reduced the cost of buying multiple devices as we have multiple devices access in it
  • Easily accessible from anywhere due to it cloud availability
  • Introducing this to our client also helped us in building trust as well as winning their confidence during deliverables
Read full review
  • Improved product quality overall, since automating tedious tests frees up time and is not prone to fatigue
  • When getting started - depending on the complexity of the software/UI tested - it can be a time sink before it brings actual value, and changes to the structure of the UI need to be communicated early, so the changes can be implemented on time to run the automation
  • Once set up, the maintenance cost is low, and the automation frees up a lot of resources especially in an agile environment where there are a lot of releases that would need regression tests.
Read full review
ScreenShots

BrowserStack Screenshots

Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of