Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting comparison

Bitbar and CrossBrowserTesting are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. Bitbar is ranked #26, 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

777 Views
542 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 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: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 849,686 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

26th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Platforms (12th)

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 May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 0.8%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

it_user1267398

Senior Automation Engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees

Has the ability to use different frameworks for testing although it is lacking in capability options

Setup depends on how you are using the product. In our case, it was quite simple. We did it ourselves and it didn't take much time, maybe a day. We used one person per team for setup, usually an engineer or developer. For each team, we had one person to assist with deployment. We have multiple teams so each team had someone dealing with setup. We now have two people working in the company who deal with the maintenance of the solution.

Read full review

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

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. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

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

"Game testing and the API for apps are good."

"Ability to use different frameworks."

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."

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

"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

"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."

"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."

"It was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."

"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."

"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

Cons

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."

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

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."

"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."

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

"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."

"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."

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

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

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

849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

16%

Insurance Company

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

27%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

Real Estate/Law Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Bitbar

Compared 46% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Bitbar

Compared 37% of the time

LambdaTest vs Bitbar

Compared 17% of the time

More Bitbar Competitors

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 69% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Platforms

April 2025

Download Bitbar product report

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 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

April 2025

Free Report: Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

849,686 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.