Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CrossBrowserTesting vs LambdaTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
LambdaTest
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of LambdaTest is 5.6%, up from 5.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
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.…
Dinesh Saharan - PeerSpot reviewer
The tool reduces the manual effort needed and helps automate certain tasks for users
I won't be able to comment on what could be improved in the solution since I am not the one who handles LambdaTest. It is our company's IT team that takes care of LambdaTest. Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis. If something is perfect, it doesn't mean that it doesn't need to improvise or improve, like in terms of adding new features. There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time.

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."
"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."
"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."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"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."
"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."
"The technical support services are excellent."
"The solution is very easy to understand and has a user-friendly UI."
"The most valuable features are that it's essentially on-demand, and you only focus on getting the code that needs to be executed without having to worry about the OS, hardware, etc."
"The slow nature of a cloud platform was compensated with parallel testing, and now we are able to finish our testing job faster than it was before COVID."
"The primary feature that has significantly improved our test execution times is automation."
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"It's user-friendly and offers valuable features for testing, making it a reliable tool."
 

Cons

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"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."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
"It would be nice to have an API for visual regression testing."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"I think Lambdatest is a valuable tool for our team and things that have room for improvement would be mobile app testing, as it can be an important addition to the tool."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"The execution reporting can be improved for better integration between automation execution and accessibility platform reporting."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."
"We get logged out of the devices if there is some inactivity."
 

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."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"LambdaTest is paid per execution."
"From the customer side, LambdaTest is cheaper for big company usage and works fine as other similar applications."
"LambdaTest is priced well, which is why we migrated to it."
"It is free to start, which means you can actually see how it works and then take the decision to buy."
"This is an affordable product."
"The product can be described as an averagely-priced solution."
"I used the product for free."
"It is affordable as compared to similar SaaS solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
862,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Real Estate/Law Firm
10%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Retailer
7%
Educational Organization
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about LambdaTest?
We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LambdaTest?
The pricing of LambdaTest depends on the deal negotiated. It is cost-effective compared to competitors like BrowserStack ( /products/browserstack-reviews ) and Sauce Labs ( /products/sauce-labs-rev...
What needs improvement with LambdaTest?
The execution reporting can be improved for better integration between automation execution and accessibility platform reporting. There are specific use cases related to authentication and authoriz...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Bringmax, Totpal, Nethhouse, Integreplanner, Cognizant, Vendisol, Clearscale, Edureka
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. LambdaTest and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
862,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.