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 0.8% mindshare in the category. Qt Group is ranked #9 in TAt , with an average rating of 8.5, and holds a 3.0% 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

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Qt Squish

Read 20 Qt Squish reviews

2,493 Views
1,298 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: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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 0.8%, down 1.1% compared to last year.
Qt Squish, on the other hand, focuses on Test Automation Tools, holds 3.0% mindshare, up 2.7% since last year.

Functional Testing Tools

Test Automation Tools

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

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. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

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."

"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."

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

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."

"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."

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

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"The initial setup process is straightforward."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

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

"It is very stable."

Cons

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

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

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

"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."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"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."

"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."

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"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."

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

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

"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."

"The price could be better."

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

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

"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."

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."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"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."

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

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

"The platform is highly-priced."

"It is expensive."

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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

27%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

Real Estate/Law Firm

Manufacturing Company

21%

Computer Software Company

17%

Healthcare Company

Transportation Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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 69% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Ranorex Studio vs Qt Squish

Compared 22% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Qt Squish

Compared 17% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Qt Squish

Compared 10% of the time

Eggplant Test vs Qt Squish

Compared 10% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Qt Squish

Compared 9% of the time

More Qt Squish Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Qt Squish

April 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

April 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qt Squish

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 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.