We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and IBM Rational Functional Tester based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"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."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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 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."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"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."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, whereas IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, Selenium HQ, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Worksoft Certify.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.
