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
OpenText Silk Central
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
Formerly from Micro Focus and earliler from Borland, unified test management with OpenText™ Silk Central drives reuse and efficiency. It gives users the visibility to control application readiness.
N/A
Pricing
BrowserStack
OpenText Silk Central
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
The main factor contributing to the adoption of BrowserStack over the others we tested is its ease of adaptation. This tool doesn't require much training to adapt. Onboarding is faster, and UAECases testing is very fast, as it includes parallel testing automation capabilities.
Chrome DevTools is free, but it takes a lot of time to manually switch devices/models, etc. And it doesn't let you switch to another system or browser (of course). When we did use it more, we'd also have to find other Chrome extensions to make up for things it didn't have built …
We used LambdaTest, but ultimately it didn't work for us because it put us in a queue when we kicked off a testing job instead of starting immediately. Our continuous integration process is managed by Microsoft Azure DevOps, and the pipeline agents it provides have a 60-minute …
It had all of the features we needed. The user interface is clean and accessible. AWS Device Farm was clunky, slow, and hard to use AND offered very little automation options / APIs.
We really needed a solution that could become part of an automated testing pipeline and …
BrowserStack is simpler and more user friendly than Sauce Labs and can be easily learned by any individual who is new to it and does not require much efforts. Also, BrowserStack is more trusted by the clients that we offer services to, and is always considered the best option …
BrowserStack is much compact and faster compared to katalon studio for mobile testing and supporting a lot of emulators compared to katalon.The licensing cost is also better compared to katalon and the user base of BrowserStack is high with official documentation well in place …
BrowserStack is often favored for its broader device coverage, ease of use, and strong local testing, while Sauce Labs shines with deeper analytics (video, network capture), AI-driven features, and robust performance for large-scale automation, especially for mobile/desktop …
well is a better option for doing testing. I used only Snagit for simple things in documentation, but usinga browser is more complete for the process of doing a large number of test cases. Snagit can crash your system with a lot of pictures, but a browser doesn't do it …
I actually tried BitBar back when they were still called CrossBrowserTesting. They offered a free trial when Browserstack got hacked in 2014. I wasn't a huge fan of their service vs Browserstack, mainly because the UI was less intuitive. I ultimately ended up going back to …
BrowserStack provided similar features at a lower cost than any other platform. All features surpass those of our competitors. Support from the BrowserStack team is awesome.
I chose BrowserStack over Playwright because it was far more simpler to test test cases, builds were already set up and was just right because our web application was not as complex as others. We also used it because of the text and image validation which is what we really …
As per my experience, BrowserStack is more suited for those organizations that have a remote work culture and also for those who need multiple device testing. Also, it is beneficial for those organizations that do not want to spend more on physical devices, as the devices update frequently in the market. It is not appropriate for those organizations which have lesser need of multi- device testing as the subscription model may not be feasible for them. Also a small organization with less number of employees would not opt for BrowserStack as it would be costlier for them.
We didn't just select Borland Silk Central randomly. In the selection process, we actually evaluated in total 26 available test management tools in the market. We sent surveys to all potential users in the department to collect their wish list of our next management tool, converted them to a criteria list, and used that list to evaluate all 26 tools. We reduced the possible candidate tools to five and organized a small committee to pick the final three. Top management then checked their price tags and selected Borland Silk Central. Based on this evaluation process, I would say Borland Silk Central is suitable to an organization which has no more than 60 testers; needs both manual tests and automated tests; needs on-line support; needs a low learning curve and has a limited budget. My personal view is that this tool reaches the balance points among ease-of-use, budget and support.
Borland Silk Central is good for the users to associate test requirements, test cases, execution plans and test reports together. Each asset (test case, requirement, etc...) provides links for the users to jump to other assets in a click, and the users can jump back and forth between two assets.
Borland Silk Central is also good in test automation. Although Micro Focus does provide a client tool for test automation, the users don't really need it to automate the tests. In our case, we are using Python to automate the tests and use a batch file to launch tests, and in Borland Silk Central we just call that batch file from server side. The test result is automatically fed back to Silk server.
Micro Focus also publishes the schema of the database behind Borland Silk Central, so it is very easy to extend its function beyond its original design. Moreover, because its schema is published, we can easily retrieve and process its data for business intelligence purpose.
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.
On the other hand, the plugins of Borland Silk Central with third-party tools are programmed poorly. In our case, the plugins for JIRA have a lot of limitations and were almost unusable in our test environment. (They did improve the plugins a little bit later, however.)
The tech support people are located in UK, so frequently it is difficult to get a hold of these guys due to different time zones. Also, most of them obviously don't have enough experience and sometimes drove us nuts in emergency situations.
The last thing I feel is that Micro Focus possibly doesn't provide enough manpower to maintain Borland Silk Central. There are tons of feature requests for Borland Silk Central pending there. Although they have frequent hot fixes every few months, they don't digest these requests quick enough.
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.
So many options that it can be a little overwhelming, but the core functions are easy to find and use and it's usually not too hard to figure things out for the more complex tasks. Very easy to boot up a device and a specific browser from the dashboard to begin a manual website test.
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
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.
I've not had much direct interaction with the BrowserStack support team. The help and community are great and we've not run into any issue that has really required us to reach out. I guess having a stable and easy to use system means you may never need to contact support.
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.
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.
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.
We used LambdaTest, but ultimately it didn't work for us because it put us in a queue when we kicked off a testing job instead of starting immediately. Our continuous integration process is managed by Microsoft Azure DevOps, and the pipeline agents it provides have a 60-minute timeout. We need immediate tests instead of flipping a coin, which could cause a false positive failure due to timeouts.
IBM Collaborate Suite - it is way too complicated and the learning curve is too high.
HP Quality Center - it is OK but a little bit expensive.
TestLink, Squash TM and other open source tools: The capabilities of open source tools just can't compare to commercial tools. Although we can modify the source code to improve the tool, we are just test engineers, not developers.
Zephyr: Our testers simply didn't like its UI - too weird.
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
Browserstack improved our internal confidence level when it came to signing off on testing
Browserstack improved the confidence level of our clients by decreasing the number of bugs found during PVT and providing an entry level opportunity for our clients to perform UAT using the same tools.
Borland Silk Central provides a centralized test platform for multiple test departments in the company, so now all of the departments know what each of them is doing. In turn, all departments can coordinate with each other to reduce the duplicated test items and increase the overall test efficiency.
Also, Borland Silk Central enables the users to publish the test procedure (steps) of each test case so all the users can know how each test case is performed. It is not like what we had before, the test procedures resided in difference place from Excel to Google drive or some other weird locations.
Also, because all departments are using Borland Silk Central, all testers of the departments have better communication regarding testing methods. In the past, the department used different test management tools and it was hard for the testers to understand each other's testing methods.
Finally, because all departments share BorlandSilk Central, they also share the same set of reports published to Atlassian Confluence, so now they use the same set of reports to evaluate the test progress.
