CrossBrowserTesting vs Qt Squish comparison

The compared SmartBear and Qt Group solutions aren't in the same category. SmartBear is ranked #26 in FT , and holds a 1.6% mindshare in the category. Qt Group is ranked #11 in TAt , with an average rating of 8.3, and holds a 2.9% 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

1,008 Views
877 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Qt Squish

Read 20 Qt Squish reviews

3,292 Views
2,634 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: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,311 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 (26th)

Qt Squish

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (11th)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. CrossBrowserTesting is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 1.6%, up 0.7% compared to last year.
Qt Squish, on the other hand, focuses on Test Automation Tools, holds 2.9% mindshare, down 3.1% since last year.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
CrossBrowserTesting	1.6%
Tricentis Tosca	12.0%
BrowserStack	6.8%
Other	79.6%

Functional Testing Tools

Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Qt Squish	2.9%
Tricentis Tosca	13.4%
OpenText Functional Testing	6.5%
Other	77.2%

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

"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."

"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks good universally in minutes."

"We would not be able to provide our services without their tools."

"It was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."

"Overall, the product does what we need and does it well."

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

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"It is very stable."

"Powerful and intuitive Integrated Development Environment (IDE) - I use this IDE daily for creating new tests, debugging tests and running tests."

"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."

"Customer support was good; they work out of the box and are willing to add a new feature if we say and if it is feasible."

"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."

"Stable automation suites; it is cheaper than most of other vendor automation tools, it supports a wide range of tool-kits, even embedded solutions, one tool for all your products."

"It supports many platforms, which helps in getting automation solutions for most of the complex UI products."

"Squish saved our time and money by creating reusable operating system independent test scripts."

More Qt Squish pros

Cons

"Automated testing could be improved."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

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

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

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

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"We have faced some difficulties in identifying canvas objects initially."

"The most complete way of testing is on several OS's, even platforms. Here, the solution provided by Squish, through several Python script files, could be simplified in such a way, so that even black box testers could manage it easily."

"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."

"Features like recovery scenarios can be added as an improvement Reporting can be improved."

"Recording tests with Squish IDE creates quite ugly code and it is very difficult to maintain tests that have been recorded."

"I like it how it is, but it's not cheap."

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

"It still requires better solutions for object identification and an enhancement to identify all the objects of the AUT before building the object map."

More Qt Squish cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"The platform is highly-priced."

"It is expensive."

"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

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Construction Company

Transportation Company

Performing Arts

Manufacturing Company

22%

Computer Software Company

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 18% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 8% of the time

Zeenyx AscentialTest vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 6% of the time

TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 5% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Eggplant Test vs Qt Squish

Compared 12% of the time

Ranorex Studio vs Qt Squish

Compared 10% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Qt Squish

Compared 8% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Qt Squish

Compared 8% of the time

Appium vs Qt Squish

Compared 7% of the time

More Qt Squish Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

March 2026

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Qt Squish

March 2026

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

March 2026

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,311 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.