BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

BrowserStack and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.3, while SmartBear is ranked #28. BrowserStack holds a 10.4% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 25 BrowserStack reviews

5,813 Views
4,866 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Tricentis Tosca

Read 110 Tricentis Tosca reviews

14,913 Views
8,247 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

CrossBrowserTesting

Tricentis Tosca

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between BrowserStack, CrossBrowserTesting, and Tricentis Tosca based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

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:

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.4%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 20.1%, up from 16.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users

I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

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

PrabhuKrishnamoorthy

Senior Director at Ascendion

Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features

The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.

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

"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."

"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."

"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."

"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."

"Local testing for products with no public exposure is an advantage in development."

"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."

"Maintenance of the solution is easy."

"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."

More BrowserStack pros

"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."

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without 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."

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

"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"One notable feature is its ability to handle negative XPath healing processes. If one XPath fails, Tosca can utilize backup XPaths to ensure test cases do not fail due to locator issues, thereby focusing on identifying application-side issues, which is the ultimate goal."

"The model-based scriptless automation is the most valuable feature because it needs less maintenance as compared to script-based automation."

"It's integrated with different technologies, desktop applications, package solutions like SAP, and mobile applications."

"It's stable and reliable."

"The feature that I have found the most valuable is the recovery and cleanup process. Suppose there is a list of test cases and one test case has failed, it should not impact the other test cases. We can reuse the same test case. We can change the configuration of parameters and then use the test cases on the same thing. So, that's a useful thing. Otherwise, we have to use the cleanup process. Another useful feature is to have our own library files. We can create our objects in the libraries and reuse them. There is no need to create duplicate data for that. They have been giving some enhancements recently which means integration is also there. They've integrated with different software like Jenkins, Bamboo. So, we can also create pipeline points. They have recently given SAP and everything, which is very useful."

"I am impressed with the product's script test."

"It offers many features, such as risk-based testing and scenario creation using Kafka."

"As a codeless automation tool, the product offers a user-friendly experience without requiring extensive coding knowledge. Users can easily handle various applications, including web applications, SAP applications, Windows applications, and even Salesforce applications, without manual coding."

More Tricentis Tosca pros

Cons

"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."

"The solution is slow."

"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."

"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."

"We had some execution issues."

"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."

"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."

"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."

More BrowserStack cons

"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."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

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

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

"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."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"I think the downside would be licensing costs which are very high."

"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."

"Tricentis Tosca's performance could be better. Sometimes when we are remapping or when it is loading it can take a lot of time. There are free solutions that have better performance in this area."

"I would like to see something in terms of AI capabilities."

"It requires some coding customization that requires expertise."

"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."

"Might have a learning curve, as it does not follow the traditional Record-Play functionality, but tests have to be built from requirements or Agile story cards."

"The product's test case management functionality needs enhancement."

More Tricentis Tosca cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"The price is fine."

"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."

"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

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

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

"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."

"The tool is expensive. It has become overpriced, especially after Tricentis Tosca grew as a company. Initially, we bought a license with an annual support fee, which wasn't too expensive. However, they changed the model, and now we have to purchase a license yearly, which has become quite costly."

"There are two licenses: single user and multiple user. A multiple-user license means that several people can work together on one project and collaborate on code stored in a central location. A single-user license is for people working alone on a one particular application. It's much cheaper than a multi-user workspace. If you are getting a large volume of licenses for an enterprise, you can probably negotiate a discount, but I'm not sure about that."

"Although the product is slightly more expensive than tools, its automation capabilities and reduced scripting needs justify the cost."

"Tosca is expensive. I don't see small and medium customers going for it. It's always large enterprises that have a big pocket. It is very expensive as compared to the other tools that we have in the market. They should reduce the price by half, and if they do that, they would do better business. From the competition perspective, other solutions are at a pretty similar level. UiPath is also very expensive. One thing that I always wanted was a short-term consumption license. With Tricentis, the biggest challenge is that you have to go for a minimum of one year license, and they also try to sell you a three-year license. It would be good if people can get a three-month or four-month consumption license."

"The price of Tricentis Tosca is approximately Є10,000 for one license. However, it used to be much cheaper, but they changed their license structure. It used to be a structure where if you bought a license you would receive one year of free support and maintenance. Now they only have a yearly license, and that is expensive."

"My understanding is that it's an expensive product, although I don't know the specifics with regards to pricing."

"A competitor of Tricentis Tosca: Katalon Studio, is very similar and offers lower pricing, though Tricentis Tosca offers more features and benefits."

"Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked."

More Tricentis Tosca pricing and cost advice

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

16%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Computer Software Company

27%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

Real Estate/Law Firm

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?

My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for...

See all answers

What needs improvement with BrowserStack?

I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?

We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus...

See all answers

How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?

Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is...

See all answers

What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?

For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 33% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 18% of the time

Katalon Studio vs BrowserStack

Compared 3% of the time

Bitbar vs BrowserStack

Compared 2% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 16% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Katalon Studio vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 11% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 10% of the time

Testim vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 7% of the time

More Tricentis Tosca Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

April 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis Tosca

April 2025

Download Tricentis Tosca product report

Overview

BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

BrowserStack

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

Tricentis Tosca is primarily leveraged for test automation across web, SAP, API, and mainframe applications, offering robust support for both regression and functional testing.

Tricentis Tosca's test automation capabilities extend to front-end and back-end testing, including processes like RPA and UI-based regression tests on Microsoft Windows. It supports Agile environments with multiple applications, enabling Salesforce automation, API endpoints, and end-to-end automation workflows. Tosca caters to diverse testing needs, integrating well with tools like Jenkins and Bamboo, although upgrades and customizations present challenges. Licensing costs and performance issues during loading and scanning are concerns, along with substantial learning curves for new users. Enhanced AI features and better reporting are on users' wishlist.

What are the key features of Tricentis Tosca?

Tosca BI: Ensures data integrity and accuracy in business intelligence testing
Tosca Commander: Centralized control for easy test management and maintenance
Model-Based Test Automation: Facilitates test creation without scripting
Integration Capabilities: Works seamlessly with Jenkins and Bamboo for CI/CD
Diverse Application Support: Compatible with mobile, web, APIs, and SAP
Scriptless Nature: Simplifies usage and reduces maintenance efforts

What benefits should users consider?

Enhanced Automation: Streamlines testing processes, saving time and resources
Scalability: Adapts to growing demands within an organization
Test Management: Centralized control enhances efficiency and oversight
Ease of Use: Scriptless approach lowers the barrier to entry for users

Tricentis Tosca is implemented across various industries, serving sectors like finance, healthcare, and retail with test automation solutions to ensure application quality and reliability. Agile teams in these industries benefit from its multi-application support and ability to manage complex end-to-end testing workflows. The tool's integration capabilities are particularly useful in environments that rely on CI/CD pipelines, ensuring continuous testing and quick feedback loops.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

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

HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

April 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.