CrossBrowserTesting vs Inflectra Rapise comparison

The compared SmartBear and Inflectra solutions aren't in the same category. SmartBear is ranked #27 in FT , and holds a 1.3% mindshare in the category. Inflectra is ranked #20 in TAt , with an average rating of 4.0, and holds a 0.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 85% of Inflectra users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

727 Views
625 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Inflectra Rapise

Read 7 Inflectra Rapise reviews

864 Views
311 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Inflectra Rapise

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Inflectra Rapise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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:

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (27th)

Inflectra Rapise

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (32nd), Test Automation Tools (20th), AI Quality Assurance (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. CrossBrowserTesting is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 1.3%, up 0.8% compared to last year.
Inflectra Rapise, on the other hand, focuses on Test Automation Tools, holds 0.7% mindshare, up 0.1% since last year.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
CrossBrowserTesting	1.3%
Tricentis Tosca	14.2%
BrowserStack	8.1%
Other	76.4%

Functional Testing Tools

Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Inflectra Rapise	0.7%
Tricentis Tosca	15.3%
OpenText Functional Testing	7.1%
Other	76.9%

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

CharlesNetshivhera

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.…

Read full review

WIllWorley

Software Consultant at The New Humanitarian

The tool needs to improve in the areas of security, though it is a versatile product

Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability. I spoke with Inflectra's executive account rep on the need to expand the tool's ability. The problem with Inflectra Rapise is that a lot of companies are still using SAP GUI. Inflectra has no intention of building Rapise in a way that allows it to interact with SAP GUI. Inflectra Rapise has very limited value for the companies I work with because they they still use SAP GUI since their top priority is SAP testing, and they want to get into automation, for which they need a tool that cannot only used to automate processes, but can also do end-to-end testing where you are not only using SAP GUI, but you are using the interface with old legacy systems that are still in use or with today's more modern technologies. In the future, the tool needs to increase its versatility. If I am at a company that uses 23 different technologies, like .NET Visual Basic, Oracle, SQL, or whatever, Inflectra Rapise needs to be made as a product that is an out-of-the-box usable tool for any technology.

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

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

"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."

"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."

"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."

"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."

"Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."

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

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"The most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility."

"It's pretty straightforward to set up."

"We always use the product for end-to-end automation test cases."

Cons

"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."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

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

"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 "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

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

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"The maintenance is very difficult. We've only been using the platform for three months, so I'm not sure if that will continue, but right now it's an observation I've had."

"It would be good if there could be more integration of Inflectra Rapise, since not all customers use the same tool for test management and automation integration."

"Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

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

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means very good pricing."

"We pay no more than $50 annually for support of each one of the licenses."

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Performing Arts

Government

University

Computer Software Company

16%

Government

16%

Comms Service Provider

13%

Performing Arts

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	2

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 31% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 9% of the time

LambdaTest vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 8% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 7% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Ranorex Studio vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 33% of the time

Automation Anywhere vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 28% of the time

UiPath Platform vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 21% of the time

NICE Robotic Automation vs Inflectra Rapise

Compared 19% of the time

More Inflectra Rapise Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

January 2026

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise

January 2026

Download Inflectra Rapise product report

Also Known As

No data available

Rapise

Overview

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

Inflectra Rapise is a robust software testing tool designed to automate testing for desktop, mobile, and web applications. It offers flexibility for testing scenarios and supports both functional and regression testing, suited for end-to-end test management needs.

Inflectra Rapise integrates seamlessly with existing technologies, providing a comprehensive environment for test automation. With its scriptless test automation approach, users can rapidly create tests without needing deep programming skills. This empowers teams to improve productivity and efficiency. Rapise's user-friendly interface and its ability to handle complex testing scenarios make it a preferred choice among testing professionals.

What are the critical features of Inflectra Rapise?

Keyword-Driven Testing: Enables easy reuse of test scripts with minimal effort.
Web Services Testing: Supports verification of web API performance and reliability.
Cross-Browser Support: Allows testing across different web browsers to ensure compatibility.
Data-Driven Testing: Facilitates the execution of tests with multiple data sets for thorough coverage.
Mobile Testing Support: Provides testing capabilities for iOS and Android applications.

What benefits should users look for?

Reduced Testing Time: Increased automation reduces the need for manual testing, saving time and resources.
Improved Accuracy: Automation minimizes human error, leading to more reliable testing outcomes.
Enhanced Collaboration: Easy integration with team collaboration tools enhances communication.
Scalability: Adapts to different project sizes and complexities, ensuring versatile use.

Inflectra Rapise is implemented across numerous industries, including finance, healthcare, and retail, where precise and efficient software testing is crucial. Its adaptability means it can meet diverse testing requirements, making it indispensable for projects demanding rigorous QA processes.

Inflectra

Sample Customers

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

- Soflab - RegEd - Intel - US Government

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise

December 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise report.

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.