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
Sauce Labs
Score 6.9 out of 10
N/A
Sauce Labs is a cloud-based platform
for automated testing of desktop and mobile applications. It is designed to be instantly scalable, since it is optimized for continuous
integration workflows. (The vendor says that when tests are automated and run in parallel on
multiple virtual machines across many different browser, platform and device
combinations, testing time is reduced and developer time is freed up from
managing infrastructure.) The Sauce Labs testing cloud is intended to be paired…
$19
per month
Tricentis Tosca
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Tricentis Tosca provides an approach to test
automation that is AI-powered, codeless, and end-to-end so it can test
everything in a complex IT landscape, to ensure business processes
work flawlessly no matter where changes occurs.
Its 160+ technology support helps users test everything at
the UI, API and data layer, including virtually any enterprise, custom,
homegrown and mobile application.
With its model-based approach, Tosca enables business,
QA and IT teams to…
N/A
Pricing
BrowserStack
Sauce Labs
Tricentis Tosca
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
Sauce Labs and LambdaTest offer extensive device and browser coverage, but BrowserStack is known for its larger device farm and frequent updates to include the latest devices and browsers.BrowserStack is known for its responsive customer support and comprehensive …
When we are comparing BrowserStack have faster session start times compared to Sauce Labs. And also simpler, user friendly setup and UI. This help to our team members to navigate and use. Browser stacks have reliable parallel execution with stable performance. We can get better …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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.
BrowserStack has better Customer Support, better Community backup, more range of devices, and better Return on Investment than both of the above mentioned companies.
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. …
Price looks little high for browserstack , they need to introduce more flexible plans to stack their customers, support team must be more quick, sometimes they take more than 2-3 days to resolve the issue. other tools are available in less cost with same features. so later on …
I have used Saucelabs with Jenkins and would say both of them are really comprehensive. Yet I suggested BrowserStack to our customers and team since I have used it recently and felt it easy to use and implement Tests on it. BrowserStack support team is another reason behind why …
Simple UX and UI made it easier to use with a Chrome addon. Vastly better performance compared to the other offerings was the critical success factor that won the deal plus the pre-sales team zoom calls.
BrowserStack offers a better interface and more robustness. The integration with our framework was easier after POC and testing the platform. Devices are enough based on our specifications and cover almost all vendors' requirements. Last, but not least, is the final cost of the …
The tests on SauceLabs were less stable, the live devices took more time to load. We were unable to easily access the devtools when running on mobile devices and the support team took more time to answer us.
Sauce Labs' strengths lie in the integrations already available with other systems, and in their support. Their weaknesses are in the speed of their emulations and with the absence of mobile debugging tools, some of which are simplicity itself in BrowserStack. Selection was …
I selected Sauce Labs over BrowserStack because of their customer service, their willing to change their security contract, and their training team. BrowserStack would not negotiate their security contract at all, and in their contract it stated if they got sued, so would my …
I used BrowserStack for a time for several web development and testing projects. It was the first platform I inherited while on a project many years ago. The Sauce platform supports more devices and the interface is easier to use on a daily basis. Moreover, the API for Sauce is …
BrowserStack captures more market share than Sauce Labs does as of this writing, and thus has a much larger support network. During testing, it was also a little faster to spin-up virtual machines, and substantially quicker spinning-up mobile simulators and emulators. Pricing …
My company used BrowserStack in the past. It was before I came on board, so I am not sure of the reason that they switched. Ever since I have been here, we have been on SauceLabs, and I am quite pleased with it. I have maintained a private selenium grid at a previous …
BrowserStack is too slow and costs the same as Sauce labs. They also don’t have as many capabilities as Sauce. Selenium grid is too much of a maintenance nightmare.
Sauce Labs is easier to configure, also it has a great documentation which helps a non-technical user in a great way. Sauce Labs is pretty good in performance compared to BrowserStack. And with a variety of support for different automation tools, makes a Sauce Labs 100% a first …
I think BrowserStack is a decent competitor with similar features to Sauce Labs. I have also used VMware, however, VMware takes up a lot of storage on your computer. Sauce Labs has pretty good documentation and webinars which I think are useful for the consumer to understand …
The Sauce Labs is more expensive than BrowserStack, especially for smaller organizations. Both Sauce Labs and BrowserStack are excellent mobile testing platforms with extensive device coverage, automation capabilities, and reporting and analytics features. While Sauce Labs …
Intuitive UI and fabulous support system make them a great vendor. Sauce Labs has a well structured support system that is extremely important in the current distributed environment.
Sauce Labs offers more features than all 3. BrowserStack is less expensive for very limited features. Katalon does not provide the minimum functionality required for most clients. Experitest support is lacking and very difficult to get a response from.
Pricing is one of our most concern. Since Cross Browser Testing has increased their price, we were looking for another alternative. We are really happy with Sauce Labs right now. The price is very reasonable and the coverage is always at most. Not to mention that their customer …
The UI is much better than Browser Stack. However I think BS was a little quicker to run up and start the tests.
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Sauce Labs
Eventually, SauceLabs was cheaper and a bit faster option (at the moment when we made a choice). On the top of that SauceLabs provided us with big enough for consistent evaluation demo period/minutes so we could test it carefully enough before purchasing. We also find no …
SauceLabs is really known to us because we have used Sauce Labs since 2012..2013 and we're really happy with it. I don't know if we'll change Sauce Labs. But we do not know any other product that has significant key features that Sauce does not have.
I initially went with Sauce Labs due to a reason that no longer exists: access to specific public real devices without having to wait because there's only one of that device. While it's a bummer things changed, with the offering of their dynamic allocation, I'm able to get a …
We found Sauce Labs to be better in the following: 1) Better selection of mobile devices (including all the new devices) 2) Supports many CI tools like Jenkins, CircleCI
Sauce Labs (when applied properly) seems to be a more efficient cross browser solution, while offering way, waaaaay more functionality and capability. In fact, sometimes it felt like there was too much baked in there and that Sauce might need to be broken into smaller pieces …
We determined, after much research and data collecting, that Sauce Labs was a better overall solution to our organization's tech needs. Our QA team was very invested in making a decision that we could be happy with not just now, but in the long term. Having to switch from one …
Tricentis Tosca has more functionality and is easier to implement. It also has more compatibility with other applications, and the support is much more responsive.
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.
Having used some of the competitor's tools over the year I would say that SauceLabs provides a lot of value for money if you plan to run long sets of tests with high frequencies. Paying for a single slot means you can run tests whenever you want without creeping costs but it does make running tests in parallel require an extra slot. Currently, our test suite takes over three hours to run and at the moment it is cost prohibitive to purchase an extra slot. However, having access to live testing and integration with Appium is great.
For projects having huge set of test cases to be automated can be accommodated by Tricentis Tosca with proper folder structure and best practices implementations. Tosca will be less appropriate for organizations where the number of automation scripts are limited with hardly any scope of increasing the script count or the cost of automation will be more than the cost of having manual resources as Tosca is a licensed tool.
I've had four changes in account managers over the past couple of years. They ranged from super experienced/advocate to some that seems relatively junior/a bit removed. I understand this happens but clarity on what I can expect with these partnerships would be valuable. What I've gotten in the end has varied dramatically.
Documentation - struggled multiple times with features not explained very well, or not explained at all
The only support is on Tricentis Forums, where, sometimes, based on 'luck' - you will open a support case, and wait few days until you get the chance to speak with someone from Tricentis and show case your issue
It's almost the 3rd year for us and it's renewal time for us. So yes, we are already discussing how many licenses we need to increase as users are increasing internally. So it's 100% sure that we are already planning renewal this year as well BrowserStack with live and app automate.
As we currently know, there's nothing on the market with a big feature set like saucelabs at their current price point. Along with the business not having to learn a whole new tool to use again and the ability to refresh our private devices and the continuously growing number of public devices available and features.
We aim to renew Tosca for our organization. What we lose in license cost is gained by having employee that do not need programming background. We also recoup a lot of the cost on the rapidity of automation. Only the support we might not use as much. I believe Tosca is here to stay at our organization
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.
It is an incredibly easy service to use for what its primary intention is. The only reason a point is deducted is because more feature enrichment can be done around the Sauce Connect Proxy utility and the Jenkins Sauce OnDemand plugin. User Account administration also needs more work, such as the addition of user groups, rather than a simple hierarchy of users.
I rated Tosca a 10/10 because it is one of the easiest enterprise automation tools to use across multiple technologies, especially for SAP, Web, API, Desktop, and database testing. Unlike script-based tools, Tosca’s model-based testing (MBT) approach makes test creation fast, simple, and stable—even for large, complex applications.
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
Yes, Sauce labs is always there, and it is easy to troubleshoot when you are having any connectivity issue, they always keep you informed when they plan to perform any type of maintenance window on their side in advance, so you can plan and will not affect your current work. I do not recall any outage.
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.
The time where they acquired TestObject and were trying to integrate their services would probably be the most annoying time. Annoying as features were in two separate places (websites) for example. But since the introduction of their unified platform, we haven't run into any issues as of yet and we've used them for at least 5-6 years now.
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.
The people here are just so friendly and personable. For instance, Tristan Lombard answered every single email with a very cheery tone and not only did he diagnose my issue, he also made sure to ask how my day was going. Keep it up
Tricentis team was very supportive. Support is expensive but they helped us at many level. Setting up timeline, implementation, precise questions on automation challenges. We had an account manager and technical people we could as to talk to. Support was generally timely and helping. They often proposed to come on site to help us which would cost more but could be helpful
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 would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is better
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.
okIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is better
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.
I am not sure if it's my company that makes getting Sauce Labs integrated into the team difficult or is it Sauce Labs. The process for getting Sauce Labs for a project is quite a tedious process and the information for using Sauce Labs initially is quite lacking. There is little support for getting started
BrowserStack products has been found better for low code automations and visual regression techniques. We have been struggling to maintain the API endpoint sanity tests and writing a lot of code for them while releasing the builds, while we chose BrowserStack accessibility solutions, we found it a way easier than we thought and worked it up.
We have also tested out Browser Stack, which at the time was more geared towards manual testing. Although it appeared to support more mobile devices/browsers, we also wanted something that can plugin in easily with our existing Selenium test scripts. Sauce Labs was definitely more geared towards our goals at the moment which were to automation functional/regression testing and build it into our release pipeline.
Tricentis Tosca is codeless and therefore easier to use. It's a great tool for people that would start doing automation and have no coding background. It seems like it has the same capabilities as other test automation suites but I felt it lacked a bit of capabilities on the test management suite such as defects test suites organizations etc
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
With private devices, you have full reign over usage of them, so no complaints there. Public devices are available if no one else is using it, which is understandable. Browser VMs are based on number of open sessions and Saucelabs give you a certain number depending on what you need. If you need more, then you pay for more. It is as simple as that. You need more devices, then you can pay for more private ones too. A workaround for public devices is to pick the first available one and not be too picky, that's if you are able to of course.
It really had a very good impact on our ROI. We were able to automate most of the apps and layers with in it and get a very short execution time which led to increased releases with in short span of time.
Time to market really improved and efficiency of developing scripts was not too bad.
With built in test dashboards, it was easy to pull metrics and share the insights with management.