No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CrossBrowserTesting vs Qualibrate 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
29th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Qualibrate
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
34th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (21st), Test Automation Tools (28th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualibrate is 1.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Qualibrate1.4%
Other97.2%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
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.…
it_user1760325 - PeerSpot reviewer
Test Manager at a government with 10,001+ employees
Reduces our testing time significantly, enabling us to release more frequently
The most valuable feature is the way it works, the usability. From the first setup, the user interface is the most beautiful. It's very nice the way you can recover things and make it work. We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate. Because everything we do is in SAP Solution Manager, we are now able to do test automatization, combined with Qualibrate. All the defects are available in SAP Solution Manager and all the changes will be in Qualibrate, immediately. From Qualibrate, we see whether tests are good or not. We can create a test-related incident in Solution Manager for those that are not good, and Test Suite in Solution Manager will notify the person who has to rebuild it. That works very nicely.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"Aside from speeding up our processes, it also allowed us to tie in our automated test scenarios and integrate our reporting tools to make the entire process efficient and hassle free."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"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."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"It is the principle functionality that we're leveraging, which really can be defined as recordings and playbacks. So, you record the scripts that you want to execute and you also want to be able to playback. So, these are the features that we are largely leveraging. There are flows and scenarios, and they are the design aspects that fit within the playback and the recording solution. For me, they are the core of Qualibrate, and that's what we're using."
"The widget's ease of use is the most valuable, which means it allows you or business people to record the automated test scripts. In most cases, it is really good because it is the business people who actually know how the system is being used. The simplicity of the design is valuable, where you can record your transactions, then create your automated scripts. You can automate it at the same time, and the automation features are cool."
"With Qualibrate, when we looked at the time and resources we are saving it was €1.5 million per year, mostly because of the move away from manual testing."
"What Qualibrate makes very easy to do is to record a process flow. Within five minutes you have a clear document produced by Qualibrate. Instead of using Word, and copying and pasting pictures into it from printscreens, within five minutes what you have was easy to make and it's easy for users to use."
"We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate."
"If you look at it from an overall perspective, where you look at the time that we typically would spend on testing, then it is probably a bit more like 60 to 70 percent time savings."
"Before Qualibrate, we did a release in about three months, and the regression testing would take us about three weeks with 15 people; now, we do it in one night."
"Overall, we are really happy with it."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"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."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"Not everything in SAP works well with Qualibrate. There is a development tool called xpath and you have to program it. We always thought it wouldn't be necessary to program it with Qualibrate, that everything could be solved by Qualibrate without programming, but you have to program some things. Using xpath is more complicated, and not easy for everybody. It would be helpful if there were a no-code solution for this."
"We had an issue with SAP when using PDF forms. That was something that was not supported by Qualibrate, but we solved that issue by choosing another solution. That was the only wish we had with Qualibrate."
"Their support has been quite good overall, but there have been some frustrations recently where we just feel like we're not always being heard."
"There is a module that we would like to have. We would like Qualibrate to design a requirements module so that we can design our testing, our flows, and our scenarios based on our actual requirements. Right now, we're doing that, but we're having to do it outside of Qualibrate. For example, in Excel, we might have a list of 50, 60, or 70 different requirements and combinations of tests that need to be executed, and since that module doesn't exist in Qualibrate, we're doing it offline. We have already vocalized that wishlist to them, and they have acknowledged it, but I have no idea when they're going to get around to deploying something like that. It is probably number one on our list."
"What could be improved would be the intuitiveness of the reporting engine."
"Not everything in SAP works well with Qualibrate."
"What could be improved would be the intuitiveness of the reporting engine. It does have reporting, i.e., a dashboard, but it is preconfigured, predefined KPIs and datasets. That could be improved because the datasets don't have descriptions, so you really need to know what you're doing. Whereas, it would be great if it could have more descriptions and be easy to build your own KPIs."
"What I would really like to see is if you are running scripts in Qualibrate, and there is a defect, then you can have it automatically raise a defect in your own ticketing system."
 

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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"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."
"We signed a three-year contract and the pricing is in line with our expectations."
"We probably have 10 licenses, but I don't know what are the costs or anything like that."
"Qualibrate is realistically priced. I can't compare it because I haven't looked at other tools, but I think it is good. What I like is you can simply add new users, if you want. It has a license model that comes with different types of users, which I think makes sense."
"I compared the prices of the 15 solutions we looked at. Qualibrate was the most valuable because it could be integrated with SAP Solution Manager."
"Automated testing is not cheap. But other companies, for example, Panaya, required a minimum of 10 licenses. Qualibrate allowed us to start small, with three licenses, with a price that was competitive within the market."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Transportation Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
AirFrance KLM, Provincie Noord Holland, Ministerie van Defensie, Nouryon, Bell Helicopter, Textron,
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.