Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
BrowserStack vs Jenkins: What are the differences?
Introduction
BrowserStack and Jenkins are both widely used tools in software development, but they serve different purposes. This article will outline the key differences between BrowserStack and Jenkins, focusing on six specific aspects.
Deployment Approach: BrowserStack is a cloud-based platform that allows developers to test their websites and applications on various browsers and devices. It provides a virtual infrastructure where users can simulate real-world scenarios. On the other hand, Jenkins is an open-source automation server that facilitates the continuous integration and delivery of software projects. It helps in building, testing, and deploying applications.
Scope of Functionality: Although both tools contribute to the software development lifecycle, BrowserStack is primarily focused on testing and quality assurance. It enables developers to conduct compatibility tests on various browsers and devices, ensuring that the application functions correctly in different environments. On the contrary, Jenkins is more versatile and can be used for multiple purposes, including building, testing, and deploying applications.
Platform Accessibility: BrowserStack is a cloud-based tool that provides easy accessibility across different platforms. It eliminates the need for setting up local test environments and allows developers to perform testing on real browsers and devices from any location. Jenkins, on the other hand, requires installation and configuration on local servers, limiting accessibility to on-premises environments.
User Interface: BrowserStack offers a user-friendly interface with a visually appealing dashboard that allows users to perform testing tasks effortlessly. It provides features like real-time screen sharing, parallel testing, and network throttling for a seamless testing experience. Jenkins, on the other hand, has a more technical and command-line-driven interface, which may require some learning curve for users who are not familiar with it.
Integration Capabilities: BrowserStack offers seamless integration with popular development and testing tools, making it easier to incorporate into existing workflows. It supports integrations with tools like Jira, Jenkins, GitHub, and Selenium, allowing users to seamlessly sync their projects and test results. Jenkins, being an automation server, provides extensive integration capabilities by supporting a wide range of plugins and tools.
Scalability and Cost: BrowserStack provides an on-demand scalable infrastructure, allowing users to test their applications on multiple browsers and devices simultaneously. The cost is typically based on the usage and the number of parallel test sessions required. Jenkins, being an open-source tool, offers scalability by leveraging additional server resources. However, the cost associated with Jenkins is generally related to the infrastructure and maintenance of local servers.
In summary, BrowserStack is a cloud-based testing platform focused on web and application compatibility, while Jenkins is an open-source automation server used for building, testing, and deploying software projects. BrowserStack offers easy accessibility, a user-friendly interface, and seamless integrations, while Jenkins is versatile and allows extensive customization. The choice between these tools depends on the specific needs and requirements of the development and testing processes.
I am looking to purchase one of these tools for Mobile testing for my team. It should support Native, hybrid, and responsive app testing. It should also feature debugging, parallel execution, automation testing/easy integration with automation testing tools like Selenium, and the capability to provide availability of devices specifically for us to use at any time with good speed of performing all these activities.
I have already used Perfecto mobile, and Sauce Labs in my other projects before. I want to know how different or better is AWS Device farm in usage and how advantageous it would be for us to use it over other mentioned tools
A SaaS offering like Sauce Labs (or BrowserStack or LambdaTest, etc) will provide a remote Selenium/Appium Grid including the ability to run test automation in parallel (up to the amount based your subscription level) an a wide array of browsers and mobile devices.
These tools can be expensive, but if you can afford them, the expertise and effort of maintaining the grid, browser updates, etc. is worth it.
AWS Device Farm can be significantly cheaper, but is much more work to setup and run. It will not give you as many devices, or the reporting and screen/video capture you get with the the services. And there is no support for AWS Device Farm, and very poor documentation. I have used it, but do not recommend it. Running your own grid and physical device lab is better, but I'd stick with a service like Sauce Labs or Perfecto which will save you time and give you better services despite the higher price tag.
Stability - Just works. Availability - More than 15 datacenters. Enterprise features like SSO, local testing and SOC2/GDPR compliant.
BitBar's Dedicated Devices would be a great option for you. It allows you to dedicate (reserve) devices for your use only which also having access to all of the devices in the shared cloud. BitBar has the features and integrations that you are looking for as well.
We are currently using Azure Pipelines for continous integration. Our applications are developed witn .NET framework. But when we look at the online Jenkins is the most widely used tool for continous integration. Can you please give me the advice which one is best to use for my case Azure pipeline or jenkins.
If your source code is on GitHub, also take a look at Github actions. https://github.com/features/actions
I'm open to anything. just want something that break less and doesn't need me to pay for it, and can be hosted on Docker. our scripting language is powershell core. so it's better to support it. also we are building dotnet core in our pipeline, so if they have anything related that helps with the CI would be nice.
Google cloud build can help you. It is hosted on cloud and also provide reasonable free quota.
I'm planning to setup complete CD-CD setup for spark and python application which we are going to deploy in aws lambda and EMR Cluster. Which tool would be best one to choose. Since my company is trying to adopt to concourse i would like to understand what are the lack of capabilities concourse have . Thanks in advance !
I would definetly recommend Concourse to you, as it is one of the most advanced modern methods of making CI/CD while Jenkins is an old monolithic dinosaur. Concourse itself is cloudnative and containerbased which helps you to build simple, high-performance and scalable CI/CD pipelines. In my opinion, the only lack of skills you have with Concourse is your own knowledge of how to build pipelines and automate things. Technincally there is no lack, i would even say you can extend it way more easily. But as a Con it is more easy to interact with Jenkins if you are only used to UIs. Concourse needs someone which is capable of using CLIs.
From a StackShare Community member: "Currently we use Travis CI and have optimized it as much as we can so our builds are fairly quick. Our boss is all about redundancy so we are looking for another solution to fall back on in case Travis goes down and/or jacks prices way up (they were recently acquired). Could someone recommend which CI we should go with and if they have time, an explanation of how they're different?"
We use CircleCI because of the better value it provides in its plans. I'm sure we could have used Travis just as easily but we found CircleCI's pricing to be more reasonable. In the two years since we signed up, the service has improved. CircleCI is always innovating and iterating on their platform. We have been very satisfied.
As the maintainer of the Karate DSL open-source project - I found Travis CI very easy to integrate into the GitHub workflow and it has been steady sailing for more than 2 years now ! It works well for Java / Apache Maven projects and we were able to configure it to use the latest Oracle JDK as per our needs. Thanks to the Travis CI team for this service to the open-source community !
I use Google Cloud Build because it's my first foray into the CICD world(loving it so far), and I wanted to work with something GCP native to avoid giving permissions to other SaaS tools like CircleCI and Travis CI.
I really like it because it's free for the first 120 minutes, and it's one of the few CICD tools that enterprises are open to using since it's contained within GCP.
One of the unique things is that it has the Kaniko cache, which speeds up builds by creating intermediate layers within the docker image vs. pushing the full thing from the start. Helpful when you're installing just a few additional dependencies.
Feel free to checkout an example: Cloudbuild Example
I use Travis CI because of various reasons - 1. Cloud based system so no dedicated server required, and you do not need to administrate it. 2. Easy YAML configuration. 3. Supports Major Programming Languages. 4. Support of build matrix 6. Supports AWS, Azure, Docker, Heroku, Google Cloud, Github Pages, PyPi and lot more. 7. Slack Notifications.
You are probably looking at another hosted solution: Jenkins is a good tool but it way too work intensive to be used as just a backup solution.
I have good experience with Circle-CI, Codeship, Drone.io and Travis (as well as problematic experiences with all of them), but my go-to tool is Gitlab CI: simple, powerful and if you have problems with their limitations or pricing, you can always install runners somewhere and use Gitlab just for scheduling and management. Even if you don't host your git repository at Gitlab, you can have Gitlab pull changes automatically from wherever you repo lives.
If you are considering Jenkins I would recommend at least checking out Buildkite. The agents are self-hosted (like Jenkins) but the interface is hosted for you. It meshes up some of the things I like about hosted services (pipeline definitions in YAML, managed interface and authentication) with things I like about Jenkins (local customizable agent images, secrets only on own instances, custom agent level scripts, sizing instances to your needs).
Within our deployment pipeline, we have a need to deploy to multiple customer environments, and manage secrets specifically in a way that integrates well with AWS, Kubernetes Secrets, Terraform and our pipelines ourselves.
Jenkins offered us the ability to choose one of a number of credentials/secrets management approaches, and models secrets as a more dynamic concept that GitHub Actions provided.
Additionally, we are operating Jenkins within our development Kubernetes cluster as a kind of system-wide orchestrator, allowing us to use Kubernetes pods as build agents, avoiding the ongoing direct costs associated with GitHub Actions minutes / per-user pricing. Obviously as a consequence we take on the indirect costs of maintain Jenkins itself, patching it, upgrading etc. However our experience with managing Jenkins via Kubernetes and declarative Jenkins configuration has led us to believe that this cost is small, particularly as the majority of actual building and testing is handled inside docker containers and Kubernetes, alleviating the need for less supported plugins that may make Jenkins administration more difficult.
Jenkins is a pretty flexible, complete tool. Especially I love the possibility to configure jobs as a code with Jenkins pipelines.
CircleCI is well suited for small projects where the main task is to run continuous integration as quickly as possible. Travis CI is recommended primarily for open-source projects that need to be tested in different environments.
And for something a bit larger I prefer to use Jenkins because it is possible to make serious system configuration thereby different plugins. In Jenkins, I can change almost anything. But if you want to start the CI chain as soon as possible, Jenkins may not be the right choice.
Pros of BrowserStack
- Multiple browsers135
- Ease of use76
- Real browsers65
- Ability to use it locally44
- Good price27
- Great web interface21
- IE support19
- Official mobile emulators17
- Cloud-based access15
- Instant access15
- Real mobile devices12
- Multiple Desktop OS8
- Selenium compatible8
- Screenshots8
- Can be used for Testing and E2E7
- Pre-installed developer tools6
- Video of test runs5
- Supports Manual, Functional and Visual Diff Testing4
- Favourites4
- Webdriver compatible4
- Many browsers4
- Test Management3
- Test automation dashboard3
- Cypress Compatible3
- Bi-directional Jira Sync3
- Free for Open Source3
- Unify and track test cases3
- Cross-browser testing3
- Speed is fast2
- Real devices2
- Private devices1
- Test WCAG Compliance1
- Web accessibility1
- Visual testing and review1
Pros of Jenkins
- Hosted internally523
- Free open source469
- Great to build, deploy or launch anything async318
- Tons of integrations243
- Rich set of plugins with good documentation211
- Has support for build pipelines111
- Easy setup68
- It is open-source66
- Workflow plugin53
- Configuration as code13
- Very powerful tool12
- Many Plugins11
- Continuous Integration10
- Great flexibility10
- Git and Maven integration is better9
- 100% free and open source8
- Github integration7
- Slack Integration (plugin)7
- Easy customisation6
- Self-hosted GitLab Integration (plugin)6
- Docker support5
- Pipeline API5
- Fast builds4
- Platform idnependency4
- Hosted Externally4
- Excellent docker integration4
- It`w worked3
- Customizable3
- Can be run as a Docker container3
- It's Everywhere3
- JOBDSL3
- AWS Integration3
- Easily extendable with seamless integration2
- PHP Support2
- Build PR Branch Only2
- NodeJS Support2
- Ruby/Rails Support2
- Universal controller2
- Loose Coupling2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of BrowserStack
- Very limited choice of minor versions2
Cons of Jenkins
- Workarounds needed for basic requirements13
- Groovy with cumbersome syntax10
- Plugins compatibility issues8
- Lack of support7
- Limited abilities with declarative pipelines7
- No YAML syntax5
- Too tied to plugins versions4