We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and CrossBrowserTesting based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"The setup was quite simple. The website easily explains how to set it up and if you want to integrate it with BMP tools there are online simple step tutorials."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"The solution is slow."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
Earn 20 points
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Bitbar, whereas CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest, Sauce Labs and Automai AppVerify.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
