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

CrossBrowserTesting vs IBM DevOps Test UI comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
26th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.7%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM DevOps Test UI1.7%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
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

"Our site's conversion from a static to an adaptive flexible layout was a major goal for our web site, and CrossBrowserTesting was an invaluable tool for trying out that new code."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"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 most valuable feature is that it gives us real OS devices that are available to test, and we don't have to ensure that all of the devices are up to date."
"Aside from speeding up our processes, it also allowed us to tie in our automated test scenarios and integrate our reporting tools to make the entire process efficient and hassle free."
"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."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester, which analyzes the changes in UI elements and allows me to automatically adapt and change my automation testing."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market."
"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."
"By automating regression test suites using this product, we were able to show time savings of more than 1200 hours in less than ONE year."
"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
 

Cons

"I had some problems with the local connection, but there is someone that can help us always on customer support chat."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available."
"It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement."
"If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less."
"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The object repository used for identifying objects can be made better. It has been noticed that the RFT tool is unable to identify some objects, due to which we are unable to add them to the object repository."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"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.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Outsourcing Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

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: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.