We performed a comparison between Bitbar 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."Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"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."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"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."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"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 five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
Bitbar is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". 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". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, LambdaTest and Katalon Studio, whereas CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, 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.
