No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Appvance AIQ Platform vs CrossBrowserTesting comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Appvance AIQ Platform
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (28th), Performance Testing Tools (8th), Load Testing Tools (8th), Regression Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (18th), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (5th)
CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
29th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Appvance AIQ Platform is 1.3%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Appvance AIQ Platform1.3%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other97.4%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2798913 - PeerSpot reviewer
QA Engineer at a computer software company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Automated regression has reduced repetitive testing and now needs simpler setup and reporting
I think that Appvance AIQ Platform can be improved by making some of the advanced features easier to configure and more intuitive for new users. The platform has a broad range of capabilities, so the learning curve can be a little easier when you first start working with it. I would also like to see more flexibility in customizing dashboards and reports for different QA teams and projects. It is a strong platform for automated testing, particularly for expanding regression coverage and reducing repetitive manual testing. But I would leave some room for improvement around the learning curve, as I mentioned earlier, and reporting customization, making some advanced features more accessible would be really useful for new users.
CN
Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable
We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It is a great performance testing tool."
"We saw the biggest improvement in testing time and regression coverage with Appvance AIQ Platform, as automation reduced the amount of manual execution required and allowed us to run a larger set of tests more frequently, making our regression cycles roughly 30 to 40% faster while increasing automated test coverage with more scenarios and data variations."
"The technical support is good."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."
"We no longer need to have a full QA team, testing is more quickly and reliably reproduced, and scheduled daily tests assist in catching any bugs which fall through the cracks and make it to the production environment."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
 

Cons

"Reporting features can be improved to provide more flexibility, collation, exporting in different formats, etc."
"I think that Appvance AIQ Platform can be improved by making some of the advanced features easier to configure and more intuitive for new users."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Appvance AIQ Platform?
I would describe the pricing and licensing for Appvance AIQ Platform as reasonable for an enterprise-grade automation platform, although it is more of an enterprise investment than a low-cost testi...
What needs improvement with Appvance AIQ Platform?
I think that Appvance AIQ Platform can be improved by making some of the advanced features easier to configure and more intuitive for new users. The platform has a broad range of capabilities, so t...
What is your primary use case for Appvance AIQ Platform?
My main use case for Appvance AIQ Platform is automated functional and regression testing. For example, I could use Appvance AIQ Platform to automate an end-to-end regression flow for a web applica...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Appvance
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, Bell Canada, CBS, UBC, PepsiCo, 7-11, BenefitVision, Kabbage, Catalent Pharmaceuticals, McKesson, Veritas, Cherwell, QAT Global, Sony, SiriusXM, CoPart, Auto Parts Alliance, PPD
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Find out what your peers are saying about Appvance AIQ Platform vs. CrossBrowserTesting and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.