CrossBrowserTesting vs Qualibrate comparison

Read 5 Qualibrate reviews

481 Views
322 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

CrossBrowserTesting and Qualibrate are competitors in the testing solutions space. CrossBrowserTesting has an advantage with its comprehensive support and pricing structure, while Qualibrate excels in providing a robust feature set for those needing advanced functionality.

Features: CrossBrowserTesting offers extensive cross-browser testing, capabilities across multiple devices, and an array of platforms, providing real-world testing environments. It also supports screenshot testing and live testing sessions for seamless visual review. Qualibrate shines in test automation, integrated workflows for process documentation, and change management, making it ideal for enterprises requiring end-to-end testing solutions.

Room for Improvement: CrossBrowserTesting could improve its integration with more enterprise systems and enhance its automation capabilities. The performance speed during high-load scenarios can also be refined. Qualibrate could offer more cost-effective pricing tiers and simplify its user interface for easier adoption. Enhancing support for broader browser coverage would also be beneficial.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CrossBrowserTesting provides an easy deployment process and responsive customer service, perfect for teams needing quick resolutions. Qualibrate, on the other hand, involves a more comprehensive deployment tailored for complex integrations, with robust customer service that ensures thorough guidance and support.

Pricing and ROI: CrossBrowserTesting generally has lower setup costs and offers a faster return on investment through its straightforward pricing model. Qualibrate, despite higher initial costs, delivers value in the long run via efficiency gains attributed to its advanced features. CrossBrowserTesting is suitable for budget-conscious buyers, whereas Qualibrate appeals to those focused on feature-rich capabilities that justify higher upfront investments.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate Report (Updated: January 2026).

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

27th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Qualibrate

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

35th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (20th), Test Automation Tools (33rd)

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualibrate is 0.8%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
CrossBrowserTesting	1.3%
Qualibrate	0.8%
Other	97.9%

Functional Testing 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

Reviewer148493

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.

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

"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."

"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."

"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."

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

"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."

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

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

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"The most valuable feature is that it's user-friendly."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

Cons

"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."

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

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

"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."

"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."

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

"Sometimes the testing is slow."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"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 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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"We probably have 10 licenses, but I don't know what are the costs or anything like that."

"We signed a three-year contract and the pricing is in line with our expectations."

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Performing Arts

Government

University

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

No data available

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 31% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 9% of the time

LambdaTest vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 8% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 7% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Panaya Test Dynamix vs Qualibrate

Compared 29% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs Qualibrate

Compared 25% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs Qualibrate

Compared 24% of the time

LambdaTest vs Qualibrate

Compared 22% of the time

More Qualibrate Competitors

Product Reports

CrossBrowserTesting

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Download Qualibrate product report

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

Undertaking a software transformation journey is a high risk. We offer a simple yet powerful solution to minimize the risk and reduce the implementation resources up to 80%.

Qualibrate is the cloud solution for SAP & web apps test automation, like Salesforce: it has the power of simplicity, customization, and integration with the most CI/CD tools. Test cases are highly reusable and easily maintainable.

All you need to do is to record a Business Process: user actions, test data, and technical information will be captured. The recording will be your unique source of truth for running Automated tests and Manual tests, but also for Learning.

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,

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate