--- description: BrowserStack : qu'en pensent les utilisateurs ? Lisez les avis clients sur BrowserStack, consultez les prix, tarifs, abonnements et découvrez ses fonctionnalités grâce à Capterra Luxembourg. image: https://gdm-localsites-assets-gfprod.imgix.net/images/capterra/og_logo-e5a8c001ed0bd1bb922639230fcea71a.png?auto=format%2Cenhance%2Ccompress title: BrowserStack - Avis, notes, prix et abonnements - Capterra Luxembourg 2026 --- Breadcrumb: [Accueil](/) > [Logiciels de test automatisé](/directory/30609/automated-testing/software) > [BrowserStack](/software/162900/browserstack) # BrowserStack Canonical: https://www.capterra.lu/software/162900/browserstack Page : 1/32\ Suivant: [Page suivante](https://www.capterra.lu/software/162900/browserstack?page=2) > Plateforme de test multinavigateur conçue pour aider les développeurs à tester des applications mobiles et des sites web. > > Conclusion : 774 utilisateurs lui ont donné la note de **4.6/5**. Figure au meilleur classement pour **Probabilité de recommander le produit**. ----- ## Présentation ### Qui utilise BrowserStack ? En bref : toute personne qui conçoit et/ou développe pour le web ouvert. Ces outils de test interactifs multinavigateurs ne requièrent aucune compétence en codage. ## Statistiques et notes | Métrique | Notation | En détail | | **Note globale** | **4.6/5** | 774 Avis | | Simplicité | 4.6/5 | D'après l'ensemble des avis | | Support client | 4.4/5 | D'après l'ensemble des avis | | Rapport qualité-prix | 4.2/5 | D'après l'ensemble des avis | | Fonctionnalités | 4.5/5 | D'après l'ensemble des avis | | Pourcentage de recommandation | 90% | (9/10 Probabilité de recommander le produit) | ## À propos de l'éditeur - **Société**: BrowserStack - **Entreprise fondée en**: 2011 ## Contexte commercial - **À partir de**: 39,00 $US - **Type de licence**: (Version gratuite disponible) (Essai gratuit) - **Public cible**: Auto-entrepreneur, 2–10, 11–50, 51–200, 201–500, 501–1.000, 1.001–5.000, 5.001–10.000, 10.000+ - **Déploiement et plateformes**: Cloud, SaaS, web, Mac (ordinateur), Windows (ordinateur) - **Langues**: anglais - **Pays disponibles**: Afrique du Sud, Allemagne, Australie, Brésil, Canada, Danemark, Inde, Irlande, Israël, Mexique, Royaume-Uni, Singapour, Émirats arabes unis, États-Unis, Îles Vierges britanniques, Îles Vierges des États-Unis ## Fonctionnalités - Alertes/Notifications - Annotations - Archivage et rétention - Assurance qualité - Automated Testing - Ciblage du public - Contrôles/Permissions d'accès - Détection d'anomalies - Enquêtes et feedback - Enregistrement et transcription vidéo - Gestion de projets - Gestion de versions - Gestion des audits - Gestion des documents - Gestion des exigences - Gestion des flux de travail - Gestion des incidents - Gestion des performances - Gestion des risques - Gestion des référentiels - Gestion des tests - Gestion des tests de logiciels - Identification des goulots d'étranglement - Indicateurs quantitatifs - Intégration continue - Mesure des performances - Monitoring - Monitoring réseau - Multiple Test Types - Outils de collaboration - Piste d'audit - Prise en charge de l'exécution parallèle - Rapports et analyses - Scripts de test - Scénarios de test de charge - Suivi de la conformité - Suivi des activités - Suivi des problèmes - Suivi des problèmes - Taçabilité - Test de charge - Test des performances - Test mobile - Test web - Visualisation de données - Vue hiérarchique - Vérification des scripts de test ## Intégrations (16 au total) - Appium - Bitbucket - CircleCI - Cypress - Espresso - GitHub - Jenkins - Jira - Microsoft Visual Studio - Netlify - Slack - Travis CI - Trello - Tricentis qTest - WordPress ... et 1 intégrations supplémentaires ## Ressources d'aide - Service client/e-mail - FAQ/forums - Base de connaissances - Support téléphonique - Chat ## Category - [Logiciels de test automatisé](https://www.capterra.lu/directory/30609/automated-testing/software) ## Catégories connexes - [Logiciels de test automatisé](https://www.capterra.lu/directory/30609/automated-testing/software) - [Suivi des bugs](https://www.capterra.lu/directory/30090/bug-tracking/software) - [Logiciels de test utilisateur](https://www.capterra.lu/directory/32295/user-testing/software) - [Test de charge](https://www.capterra.lu/directory/32135/load-testing/software) - [Logiciels de gestion des tests](https://www.capterra.lu/directory/34315/test-management-tools/software) ## Logiciels similaires 1. [Lyssna](https://www.capterra.lu/software/178766/usabilityhub) — 4.6/5 (87 reviews) 2. [QA Wolf](https://www.capterra.lu/software/1012378/qa-wolf) — 5.0/5 (73 reviews) 3. [TestRail](https://www.capterra.lu/software/128204/testrail) — 4.3/5 (179 reviews) 4. [kapptivate](https://www.capterra.lu/software/1069772/kapptivate) — 4.5/5 (6 reviews) 5. [Lightster](https://www.capterra.lu/software/1063000/lightster) — 4.7/5 (9 reviews) ## Avis ### "Reliable Cross Browser Testing Tool - Browserstack" — 5.0/5 > **Yash** | *2 avril 2026* | Services et technologies de l'information | Taux de recommandation : 8.0/10 > > **Avantages**: - I can test on alomst any real iphone or android model without needing the physical hardwhere. - It makes it very easy to test my local dev env even when i'm behind a company's VPN. - It works well with our existing Playwright and Pyhton automation scripts. > > **Inconvénients**: - There's often a big lag between my mouse click \& the remote devide responding. - It can take 20 30 sec, just to start a session, which feels slow when you are in a hurry. - It's definitely on the expensive side, especially when you start adding parallel testing slots for the team. > > It's a good tool that has become a part of our workflow. It helps us catch CSS bugs and layout issues on mobile Safari that we just can't see on desktop emulators. While the speed could be better and the cost is high, the reliability of testing on real devices makes it worth it for a professional team. ----- ### "Reliable Cross-Browser Testing Platform with Strong Automation Support" — 5.0/5 > **Tashvik** | *3 avril 2026* | Logiciels de construction | Taux de recommandation : 10.0/10 > > **Avantages**: Access to a wide range of real devices and browsers Strong automation support with parallel execution Easy integration with CI/CD pipelines Useful debugging tools like logs and video recordings > > **Inconvénients**: Pricing can be on the higher side for smaller teams Test management features could be more robust Occasional latency in live sessions > > Overall, my experience with BrowserStack has been very positive. It has significantly streamlined cross-browser testing and reduced the need for maintaining physical test infrastructure. Despite minor drawbacks like pricing and occasional performance lags, it remains a reliable and essential tool in the QA and development workflow. ----- ### "Genuinely solved our cross-platform testing headache" — 5.0/5 > **Chirag** | *12 mai 2026* | Services et technologies de l'information | Taux de recommandation : 9.0/10 > > **Avantages**: - The real device coverage is what sold me. Pixel, Samsung Galaxy series, Xiaomi, OnePlus, older Motorola devices - they are all there. For Flutter and Ionic builds especially, this matters because the rendering can behave very differently on OEM skins than on a clean Pixel emulator. - App Live is fast. Drag an APK or IPA in, pick a device, and you are testing within a minute. No cable, no adb, no "why won't my Mac see this phone today." - The dev tools inside the session are genuinely useful - Logcat, network inspection, device logs, screenshots, screen recording. I can actually debug a remote device almost like it's plugged in. - App Automate plays nicely with our CI. We use it with GitHub Actions and it just runs. The Appium support is solid for both native Android and Flutter/Ionic test suites. - Network throttling and GPS simulation have caught real bugs for us - stuff like map features breaking on slow 3G, or location permissions behaving oddly in certain regions. - The iOS side is equally good, which matters because as a Flutter/Ionic developer I'm constantly switching between platforms and don't want a separate tool for each. > > **Inconvénients**: - Pricing. Once you want parallel test runs for a real CI setup, the cost climbs fast. For a small team or solo developer it's a real consideration. - Older devices are sometimes laggy or freeze partway through a session. Usually a reconnect fixes it but it breaks flow. - App installs occasionally fail the first time, especially on certain Xiaomi or Huawei devices. Retry usually works but it's annoying. - Session timeouts on the cheaper plans feel short when you're doing thorough manual QA. > > Honestly, before BrowserStack we were juggling a drawer full of old phones and a bunch of emulators, and it was a mess. Half the bugs we'd find in production were things like "works on Pixel, breaks on Samsung" or "fine on Android 12, weird padding on Android 10." Now most of that gets caught before release. It's not perfect, and the pricing makes me wince sometimes, but I would struggle to go back to how we worked before. ----- ### "Okay, but not the best for Test Management" — 3.0/5 > **Jess** | *2 avril 2026* | Logiciels | Taux de recommandation : 6.0/10 > > **Avantages**: They have the right idea with Test Management but the execution is a little iffy. For example the drag and drop for copying a test case will work for a bit, then stop. Their support team is top tier. > > **Inconvénients**: The bugs, the execution of Test Management is a little iffy. For example the drag and drop for copying a test case will work for a bit, then stop. > > Overall its neutral. We ended up switching to Qase for better/cheaper AI test case creation. BrowserStacks support team has been great through the various issues but we did run into a lot of issues. ----- ### "The Unfair Advantage Every QA/Automation Team Deserves" — 5.0/5 > **Yogesh** | *2 avril 2026* | Produits chimiques | Taux de recommandation : 10.0/10 > > **Avantages**: Five years on the enterprise plan and the one thing I like most is how BrowserStack completely removes infrastructure as a problem. Real devices with SIM support, thousands of browser and OS combinations, instant availability, no maintenance overhead. App Live and App Automate work seamlessly with Selenium, Appium, Playwright and most of automation tools without any complex setup. Parallel execution is significantly faster than any self hosted grid I have managed. The newly released no code low code testing is also best, accessibility testing and visual regression tools are production ready and not just checkboxes. For an enterprise team this is the best investment in the testing stack. > > **Inconvénients**: Pricing is the one honest gripe. BrowserStack is worth every rupee but it is not cheap, and for smaller teams or startups the enterprise plan can feel like a stretch. Parallel session limits on lower tiers push you to upgrade faster than expected and when your team scales quickly, the cost scales with it in a way that requires a conversation with finance every renewal cycle. > > BrowserStack did not just improve our testing workflow, It transformed how our entire engineering culture thinks about quality. The chaos before was real. Flaky emulators, inconsistent local device setups, test results that meant nothing because the environment was never stable. Onboarding a new automation tool meant weeks of configuration, compatibility debugging and infrastructure work before a single meaningful test ran. From day one on the BS plan the difference was visible. Real devices, real browsers, real network conditions, available instantly, every single time. No queues, no "device is offline," no environment drift. The confidence in our test results changed overnight because the platform underneath them was finally reliable. Across multiple automation tools integration experience has been consistently smooth. Switching frameworks mid project did not mean rebuilding infrastructure, It meant updating a config and moving on. That kind of flexibility is rare and genuinely underappreciated until you have worked without it. App Live became the go to for exploratory testing on real devices with SIM support. App Automate handled mobile regression at a scale and speed a physical device lab three times our budget could not have matched. The freedom to choose between virtual and real devices depending on the test objective gave us precision we simply did not have before. The no code and low code capabilities brought manual QA members directly into the automation process, accessibility testing and visual regression are now standard pipeline stages, not separate afterthought tools. Everything lives in one platform, reporting is unified and session management gives complete visibility into what ran, when and exactly why something failed. Enterprise support has been a genuine partner throughout, Issues resolved by people who actually understand automation deeply, not generic ticket handlers. There is a reason it remains the one tool in the stack that has never been up for replacement. It is not just a platform, it is the foundation our entire quality process is built on. ----- Page : 1/32\ Suivant: [Page suivante](https://www.capterra.lu/software/162900/browserstack?page=2) ## Liens - [Afficher sur Capterra](https://www.capterra.lu/software/162900/browserstack) ## Cette page est disponible dans les langues suivantes. | Langue | URL | | de | | | de-AT | | | de-CH | | | en | | | en-AE | | | en-AU | | | en-CA | | | en-GB | | | en-IE | | | en-IL | | | en-IN | | | en-NZ | | | en-SG | | | en-ZA | | | es | | | es-AR | | | es-CL | | | es-CO | | | es-CR | | | es-DO | | | es-EC | | | es-MX | | | es-PA | | | es-PE | | | fr | | | fr-BE | | | fr-CA | | | fr-LU | | | it | | | nl | | | nl-BE | | | pl | | | pt | | | pt-PT | | | sv | | ----- ## Données structurées