CrossBrowserTesting vs Telerik Test Studio comparison

SmartBear and Progress Software are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #26, while Progress Software is ranked #24. SmartBear holds a 1.6% mindshare in FT, compared to Progress Software’s 1.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Progress Software users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

1,008 Views
877 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Telerik Test Studio

Read 5 Telerik Test Studio reviews

1,438 Views
892 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Telerik Test Studio

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Telerik Test Studio and CrossBrowserTesting are competing in the test automation and cross-browser testing category. CrossBrowserTesting has the upper hand due to its comprehensive feature set, especially in terms of extensive capabilities across devices and operating systems.

Features: Telerik Test Studio is recognized for its intuitive automation and extensive integration options. It offers detailed test management, PDF validation for thorough report testing, and easy-to-use record and play features. CrossBrowserTesting supports a broad range of devices and browsers, quick session initiation, and provides real-time testing on live devices, making it ideal for precise cross-platform testing.

Room for Improvement: Telerik Test Studio could enhance its device and browser support variety, improve real-time testing speed, and offer more flexible pricing options. CrossBrowserTesting could focus on reducing upfront costs, improving the user interface for new users, and increasing offline testing capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Telerik Test Studio offers strong user support and an efficient deployment model for quick setup and problem-solving. CrossBrowserTesting provides a cloud-based testing environment that enables streamlined deployment with immediate support response, improving usability.

Pricing and ROI: Telerik Test Studio presents competitive pricing with significant long-term ROI through its comprehensive testing features. CrossBrowserTesting might require a higher initial investment but delivers substantial returns with its extensive testing capabilities, reducing development cycles and improving project outcomes.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. Telerik Test Studio Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Telerik Test Studio

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,311 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

26th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Telerik Test Studio

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

24th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Load Testing Tools (14th), Regression Testing Tools (11th), Test Automation Tools (24th)

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.6%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.7%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Telerik Test Studio	1.7%
CrossBrowserTesting	1.6%
Other	96.7%

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

Raghvendra Jyothi

Manager Project Management at Capgemini

Very good performance and load testing capabilities

There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test. When we use the solution instead of Microsoft Edge, more scripting is required. The reports for structure point or test management could be more compatible with other tools. For example, when I create an application I sometimes cannot generate a report.

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 I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

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

"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."

"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."

"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."

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

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."

"The way it identifies elements is good."

"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."

"The performance and load testing are very good."

"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."

"The object repository is the most valuable feature, as different elements can be identified and reutilized through the repository across other scripts, and the product has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."

"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."

Cons

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

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."

"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, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."

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

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."

"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."

"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."

"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."

"We have not seen a return on investment yet."

"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."

"The first time I customized the solution, it was quite challenging."

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."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"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."

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

"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."

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

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Construction Company

Transportation Company

Performing Arts

Manufacturing Company

17%

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

University

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 18% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 8% of the time

Zeenyx AscentialTest vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 6% of the time

TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 5% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Selenium HQ vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 9% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 7% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 6% of the time

k6 Open Source vs Telerik Test Studio

Compared 4% of the time

More Telerik Test Studio Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

March 2026

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

March 2026

Download Telerik Test Studio 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

Telerik Test Studio is an innovative and easy-to-use automated web, WPF and load testing solution. Test Studio tests support essential technologies like ASP.NET AJAX, Silverlight, PHP and MVC. Test Studio functional testing is a comprehensive yet cost-effective automated testing suite. Users can complete tasks quickly and easily with the product's point-and-click interface, which is augmented by Telerik-exclusive features like a visual storyboard and 3D element selection. Test Studio also offers script-less test automation for Silverlight applications. Test Studio load tests allow users to capture quickly capture, multiply and replay complex web traffic. Record HTTP traffic from desktop browsers, mobile devices and web services, and replay traffic with hundreds or thousands of virtual users spread across multiple machines. Fine-tune your load scenario with data binding, user authentication, and dynamic targets. Test Studio Mobile is an intuitive and easy to use test automation solution for Mobile application testing. Create tests once and test across multiple devices and OS's. The point and click functionality allows users to capture quickly and replay complex mobile testing functionality. There is no need to write a single line of code. Test against any number of real devices as you wish or through an emulator by connecting through Wifi. Test Studio for APIs helps customers verify the integrity and reliability of their APIs in an easy way and incorporate their API testing effort in their continuous testing and delivery process. Test Studio for APIs is used to determine whether APIs return the correct response for a broad range of commonly accepted requests, react properly to edge cases such as failures and unexpected inputs, as well as deliver the responses in an acceptable amount of time.

Progress Software

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Telerik Test Studio

March 2026

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Telerik Test Studio

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Telerik Test Studio and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Telerik Test Studio report.

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.