CrossBrowserTesting vs Qt Squish comparison

The compared SmartBear and Qt Group solutions aren't in the same category. SmartBear is ranked #28 in FT , and holds a 1.0% mindshare in the category. Qt Group is ranked #9 in TAt , with an average rating of 8.2, and holds a 3.4% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 95% of Qt Group users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

550 Views
495 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Qt Squish

Read 20 Qt Squish reviews

2,833 Views
2,323 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Qt Squish

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Qt Squish 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. Qt Squish Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,566 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 (28th)

Qt Squish

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (9th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. CrossBrowserTesting is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 1.0%, up 0.8% compared to last year.
Qt Squish, on the other hand, focuses on Test Automation Tools, holds 3.4% mindshare, up 3.0% since last year.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
CrossBrowserTesting	1.0%
Tricentis Tosca	18.4%
BrowserStack	10.0%
Other	70.6%

Functional Testing Tools

Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Qt Squish	3.4%
Tricentis Tosca	20.4%
OpenText Functional Testing	8.7%
Other	67.5%

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

Luc Vangrunderbeeck

Software Test Engineer at Infrabel

Testing solution supports Java testing with good reliability

There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java. You need to set up some special environment variables to be able to do that.

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

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."

"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 ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

"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."

"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."

"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."

"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"I like the dashboard. It's virtual, and you can see the customer results. I can do it at night and in the morning. I think it also automatically emails results."

"It is very stable."

"I find it very user-friendly and easy to start working with. The main benefit for me is that it allows testing applications developed in the Qt language. This capability makes Squish a game-changer, as it's the only tool I've found that enables automation for applications written in Qt. I appreciate three main aspects. Firstly, the documentation is excellent. Secondly, I value the way the tool efficiently locates elements during testing. These are the two aspects I particularly like."

"Squish is integrated with Qt, which enables us to test the user interface effectively."

"The initial setup process is straightforward."

"This product can work with QT applications and cross-cut from them on Windows or Mac."

"I can perform Java SWT."

"froglogic Squish is one of the most desired solutions if you are having a Qt as a framework and if you are looking at GUI regression testing. froglogic is a part of Qt as a company."

Cons

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

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

"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."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."

"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"The platform could be improved by implementing some basic functionalities that are frequently used, such as login procedures and screen handling when multiple screens are used at the workplace."

"You need to set up some special environment variables."

"ID could be improved with suggestions of names, variables or class."

"We encountered issues with the embedded environment and building for the Qt version."

"There had been a lot of improvements with froglogic Squish already. There were some scenarios in which this particular solution was available in different flavors. They have pulled everything together in one solution. There were some monitoring systems, which were missing out from the solution earlier. They have a centralized dashboard for monitoring the test cases and their execution. It's a full-blown solution, there are not many glitches in terms of something missing out of the package."

"I'm relatively new to Squish, so I'm not familiar with all its pros and cons. Currently, I haven't identified any specific improvements. However, one feature I miss is Git integration within the tool. In my previous experience with Selenium and Python in PyCharm, it was straightforward to create and review changes before pushing them. I haven't found a similar option in Squish, and having an integrated tool for managing conflicts would be beneficial in certain scenarios where collaboration is involved."

"The price could be better."

"Support isn't always helpful. I sometimes need to find solutions myself."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

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

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"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 expensive."

"The platform is highly-priced."

"The price could be better. I believe each developer license costs about 6000 or 7000 Euros per year."

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

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Manufacturing Company

22%

Computer Software Company

14%

Healthcare Company

Comms Service Provider

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	10
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	9

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for froglogic Squish?

I'm aware of the price from three or four years ago, and it depends on the number of users. For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.

See all answers

What needs improvement with froglogic Squish?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for froglogic Squish?

I am not really using the solution during development, however, for regression and automatic regression tests, I am using it. I use it to do visual Qt, which focuses on the GUI part of the applicat...

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 73% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Ranorex Studio vs Qt Squish

Compared 19% of the time

Eggplant Test vs Qt Squish

Compared 17% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Qt Squish

Compared 12% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Qt Squish

Compared 10% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Qt Squish

Compared 10% of the time

More Qt Squish Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

October 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Qt Squish

September 2025

Download Qt Squish product report

Also Known As

No data available

froglogic Squish

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

Take the complexity out of testing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and human-machine interfaces (HMIs) – even in the face of product evolution and safety-critical applications.

Qt Group

Sample Customers

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

Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish

September 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,566 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish 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.