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

CrossBrowserTesting vs SmartBear TestComplete 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
27th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
8th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.9%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SmartBear TestComplete4.9%
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
Other93.7%
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.…
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Test Lead at Emerson
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"We would not be able to provide our services without their tools."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"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."
"Valuable for us is the ability to identify objects by using Find methods."
"My advice to others is: If you're looking for speed, configuration consistency, and accuracy of tests with fantastic results, go get TestComplete."
"Customer Service: It's good. Technical Support: It's good."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"We already have the UI smoke test and have integrated to our build system, which runs each day for multiple versions of the product and saves us a lot of time."
"It's a great tool that covers many features and is straightforward with logs."
 

Cons

"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."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"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."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"TestComplete had problems during long hours runs. In some cases it could crash without leaving any logs."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"There is no qualified support for different web UI frameworks and no V8 support as well."
"Memory consumption Speed of interaction with controls Sets of prepared libraries like asserts Templates of tests from scratch"
"Unfortunately, TestExecute does not enable us to select the Tests that has to be executed."
"Right now, in terms of recording and scripting the solution is not user-friendly."
 

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."
"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."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,588 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%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

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 Business23
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise32
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature. Occasion...
What is your primary use case for SmartBear TestComplete?
We are using SmartBear TestComplete ( /products/smartbear-testcomplete-reviews ) for automation over applications.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,588 professionals have used our research since 2012.