Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
BrowserStack vs Webpack: What are the differences?
BrowserStack: Instant access to a lab of 1000+ real mobile and desktop browsers for testing. Live, Web-Based Browser Testing Instant access to all real mobile and desktop browsers. Say goodbye to your lab of devices and virtual machines; Webpack: A bundler for javascript and friends. A bundler for javascript and friends. Packs many modules into a few bundled assets. Code Splitting allows to load parts for the application on demand. Through "loaders" modules can be CommonJs, AMD, ES6 modules, CSS, Images, JSON, Coffeescript, LESS, ... and your custom stuff.
BrowserStack and Webpack are primarily classified as "Browser Testing" and "JS Build Tools / JS Task Runners" tools respectively.
"Multiple browsers", "Ease of use" and "Real browsers" are the key factors why developers consider BrowserStack; whereas "Most powerful bundler", "Built-in dev server with livereload" and "Can handle all types of assets" are the primary reasons why Webpack is favored.
Webpack is an open source tool with 49.8K GitHub stars and 6.27K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Webpack's open source repository on GitHub.
Airbnb, Instagram, and Pinterest are some of the popular companies that use Webpack, whereas BrowserStack is used by ebay, Typeform, and Wikipedia. Webpack has a broader approval, being mentioned in 2209 company stacks & 1344 developers stacks; compared to BrowserStack, which is listed in 579 company stacks and 239 developer stacks.
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.
I could define the next points why we have to migrate:
- Decrease build time of our application. (It was the main cause).
- Also
jspm installtakes much more time thannpm install. - Many config files for SystemJS and JSPM. For Webpack you can use just one main config file, and you can use some separate config files for specific builds using inheritance and merge them.
We mostly use rollup to publish package onto NPM. For most all other use cases, we use the Meteor build tool (probably 99% of the time) for publishing packages. If you're using Node on FHIR you probably won't need to know rollup, unless you are somehow working on helping us publish front end user interface components using FHIR. That being said, we have been migrating away from Atmosphere package manager towards NPM. As we continue to migrate away, we may publish other NPM packages using rollup.
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 Webpack
- Most powerful bundler309
- Built-in dev server with livereload182
- Can handle all types of assets142
- Easy configuration87
- Laravel-mix22
- Overengineered, Underdeveloped4
- Makes it easy to bundle static assets2
- Webpack-Encore2
- Redundant1
- Better support in Browser Dev-Tools1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of BrowserStack
- Very limited choice of minor versions2
Cons of Webpack
- Hard to configure15
- No clear direction5
- Spaghetti-Code out of the box2
- SystemJS integration is quite lackluster2
- Loader architecture is quite a mess (unreliable/buggy)2
- Fire and Forget mentality of Core-Developers2




















