We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest 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.
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"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."
"This product offers out-of-the-box geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"The UI is pretty clean and easy to navigate, and we were able to figure it out very quickly."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"LambdaTest easily integrates with leading project management, bug tracking, and CI-CD tools like Jira, Asana, Jenkins, Circle CI, and more."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"Our test execution time was reduced to 16 mins from five hours when executed in parallel on multiple VMs. This has been extremely helpful!"
"In case something goes wrong at LambdaTest end, the Support team is extremely responsive to analyze any platform-related issues."
"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."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"Mobile application testing would be helpful for us."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"You cannot perform native-app testing, as they offer simulation for web testing only."
"The analytics over the automation dashboard can be more intuitive."
"The scalability is good with Amazon, but IBM had some issues."
"LambdaTest needs to have native application testing, which would be a great help to my team."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while LambdaTest is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 13 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 8.6, while LambdaTest is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Live testing gives us the ability to identify potential issues on different browsers and devices proving to be a very useful tool". On the other hand, the top reviewer of LambdaTest writes "Reliable, integrates well with other platforms, and is less costly than our previous solution". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Tricentis Tosca, Bitbar, Sauce Labs and Micro Focus UFT One, whereas LambdaTest is most compared with BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, TestProject, Tricentis Tosca and Perfecto. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. LambdaTest report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
