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

CrossBrowserTesting vs IBM DevOps Test UI comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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

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
IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
27th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.6%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM DevOps Test UI1.6%
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Other97.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

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.…
HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"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."
"As it is built on Ellipse/Java and costs less than other tools, it is recommended."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
"The technical support is good; at least their response time is good, and whenever we ask them for help regarding deployment customizations, custom code implementation, or other code needs, they heavily support us, assign us IT engineers who work alongside us helping with code-related issues, and stay until the problem is resolved."
 

Cons

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"Automated 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."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"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."
"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."
"If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement."
"If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"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."
"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Transportation Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
 

Also Known As

No data available
IBM Rational Functional Tester
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Edumate
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.