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

CrossBrowserTesting vs Ranorex Studio comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
Ranorex Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
17th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (8th), Regression Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ranorex Studio is 3.4%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Ranorex Studio3.4%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other95.3%
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.…
Aws V - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Team Leader -Automation Manager at Citco
Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet
There were a lot of issues we faced. One notable improvement would be better API integration within the tool itself, as we still rely on external tools like Postman. Additionally, expanding language support beyond C#, Java, and JavaScript to include Python would be beneficial. An AI feature that automatically detects automation object properties and suggests actions would be a great addition. So, in future releases, AI solutions for automated property identification would be helpful.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Overall, this solution has proved useful to our organization, and with future improvements and the hopeful addition of devices, it will continue to be a tool we use daily."
"We would not be able to provide our services without their tools."
"We no longer need to have a full QA team, testing is more quickly and reliably reproduced, and scheduled daily tests assist in catching any bugs which fall through the cracks and make it to the production environment."
"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."
"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."
"Our site's conversion from a static to an adaptive flexible layout was a major goal for our web site, and CrossBrowserTesting was an invaluable tool for trying out that new code."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"We have automated 15+ internal applications for our client, which reduced much manual effort on regression testing."
"By our calculations we are now getting a return of 50% time saved in team efforts, making the team 50% more productive."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"The solution is stable."
"Easy integration with CI Tools like Jenkins, TFS, and TeamCity."
"Dynamically changing application or a desktop application which is challenging to automate, blindly go for Ranorex."
"Customer Service: Ranorex’s customer service is outstanding."
"It works well for us, we can quickly add service agents wherever we need to so we can run multiple scripts in parallel, and it runs pretty strongly while costing just a fraction of a UFT solution."
 

Cons

"I had some problems with the local connection, but there is someone that can help us always on customer support chat."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"When we have updated the solution in the past there have been issues with the libraries. They need to make it clear that the libraries need to be upgraded too."
"Running the tool in a distributed environment was a challenge since Ranorex requires an active user session."
"They need to improve their support of different web browsers along with Flash support."
"With the new version of Chrome, some objects are identified differently, so we need to identify those and fix the x-path of the object."
"Support for Mac and Linux would be handy, it supports only Windows"
"Their logs are not compatible with the continuous integration we use internally."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"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."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"This solution is a more expensive solution compared to some of the other competitors."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"Our company has one license per user with each costing two lakh rupees."
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"We paid €3,000 (approximately $3,300 USD) for this solution. When you add the runtime licenses it will be €3,500 (approximately $3,900 USD)."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
914,351 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise23
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
914,351 professionals have used our research since 2012.