Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting comparison

Bitbar and CrossBrowserTesting are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. Bitbar is ranked #27, while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked #28. Bitbar holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to CrossBrowserTesting’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 50% of Bitbar users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of CrossBrowserTesting users who would recommend it.

Bitbar

Read 3 Bitbar reviews

681 Views
383 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

529 Views
305 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Bitbar

CrossBrowserTesting

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Bitbar and CrossBrowserTesting are competing in the software testing category. Despite Bitbar's competitive pricing, CrossBrowserTesting has the upper hand with its robust features.

Features: Bitbar offers strong support for mobile testing, along with integration with various CI/CD tools and adaptability for mobile-first environments. CrossBrowserTesting provides extensive browser testing capabilities, real-time testing on a wide range of browsers, and automation features, offering feature versatility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Bitbar is known for a straightforward deployment process and reliable customer service with prompt assistance and detailed documentation. CrossBrowserTesting focuses on usability and efficient customer support with a variety of self-help resources, offering a slightly more comprehensive support framework.

Pricing and ROI: Bitbar offers a cost-effective setup with a flexible pricing model, allowing for scalable solutions and significant ROI, especially in mobile testing environments. CrossBrowserTesting is more premium in pricing, providing a worthwhile return through its extensive features and browser coverage.

To learn more, read our detailed Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 856,873 peers since 2012

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

Bitbar

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

27th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Platforms (11th)

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

28th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 0.8%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

reviewer1288116

Head of Digital & Cognitive Services at a tech company with 11-50 employees

A testing platform with a good API for apps, but pricing is complicated

I like that the AI Testbot is a near-zero code application for testing. For this use case, the function is good. The services are robust. Game testing and the API for apps are also good. From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied.

Read full review

CharlesNetshivhera

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.…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Ability to use different frameworks."

"Game testing and the API for apps are 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."

"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."

"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."

"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 screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

Cons

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."

"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."

"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."

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Comms Service Provider

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

23%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Real Estate/Law Firm

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Bitbar

Compared 43% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Bitbar

Compared 40% of the time

LambdaTest vs Bitbar

Compared 17% of the time

More Bitbar Competitors

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 81% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 19% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Platforms

May 2025

Download Bitbar product report

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

June 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Also Known As

Testdroid

No data available

Overview

Testdroid is a set of mobile software development and testing products by Bitbar Technologies Limited. Testdroid comprises three different products: Testdroid Cloud, Testdroid Recorder and Testdroid Enterprise. Testdroid provides an application programming interface through open source software available on GitHub. Testdroid can use testing frameworks, such as Robotium, Appium and uiautomator for native and Selenium for web applications, targeted for mobile application and game developers. Testdroid Cloud contains real Android and iOS powered devices, some of which are available for users. Testdroid Cloud lets users run tests simultaneously on cloud-based service. Testdroid Recorder is a tool for developers and testers for recording user-actions and producing JUnit based test cases on mobile application and games. Testdroid Recorder is available at the Eclipse marketplace. Testdroid Enterprise is a server software for managing automated testing on multiple real Android and iOS powered devices, supporting Gradle build system and Jenkins Continuous Integration.

SmartBear

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

Rovio, Paf, Supercell, NITRO Games, Seriously, AVG, Google, Bosch, Yahoo, Microsoft, Yandex, Mozilla, eBay, PayPal, TESCO, Cisco WebEx, Facebook, LinkedIn, skype, Subway

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting

May 2025

Free Report: Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting

Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting report.

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.