We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"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."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"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."
"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."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"It supports many external plugins, and because it's a Java-based platform, it's language-independent. You can use Java, C#, Python, etc."
"It supports most of the mainstream browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, IE and etc."
"It supports most of the actions that a user would do on a website."
"Selenium has helped to complete tests in less time, which would not be possible relying on manual testing only."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"It takes such a long time to use this solution that it may be worth looking into other free solutions such as TestProject or Katalon Studio, or paid solutions to replace it."
"The solution can be improved by providing better reporting logs."
"You need to have experience in order to do the initial setup."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"Selenium HQ doesn't support Windows-based applications, so we need to integrate with the third-party vendor. It would be great if Selenium could include Windows-based automation. You need to integrate it with a third-party tool if you want to upload any files. When we interact with a Windows application, we usually use Tosca."
"Handling frames and windows needs to be improved."
"We'd like to see some more image management in future releases."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
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.
