CrossBrowserTesting vs Testim comparison

SmartBear and Testim are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while Testim is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.6. SmartBear holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to Testim’s 3.4% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Testim users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

529 Views
476 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Testim

Read 10 Testim reviews

2,938 Views
1,498 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Testim

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

CrossBrowserTesting and Testim are competing products in the automated testing field. Testim appears to have an edge due to its advanced features, while CrossBrowserTesting is favored for its cost-effectiveness and support.

Features: CrossBrowserTesting provides real device testing and a wide browser compatibility, ensuring cross-platform consistency. It supports extensive device selection with real-world scenarios and offers features like screenshots and screen recordings. Testim offers AI-driven testing capabilities for intelligent test creation and adaptive automation, enhancing efficiency and precision with its record and playback feature.

Room for Improvement: CrossBrowserTesting could enhance its AI-driven features and automation capabilities. Improving processing speed and reducing lag times could also benefit users. Testim could improve its customer service to match its deployment and ease of use. Expanding browser coverage and testing speed would add more value.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CrossBrowserTesting offers straightforward deployment with robust customer support, providing quick setup and issue resolution. Testim's deployment is user-friendly with efficient onboarding but has room for improvement in customer service response.

Pricing and ROI: CrossBrowserTesting offers competitive pricing and a high ROI, appealing for budget-conscious organizations. Testim, with higher setup costs due to its advanced features, provides justified ROI through reduced time and increased test accuracy. The greater initial investment is offset by its enhanced capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. Testim Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Testim

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 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

28th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Testim

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

11th

Average Rating

9.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (7th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Testim is 3.4%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

Dheeraj Bavirisetty

Senior Consultant at Eviden France

Enhancing automation skills, intuitive, and low-code

We use Testim to automate our testing scripts. I am part of the testing team for a corporate bank in the US, which is my client. We work on building their product, and Testim is used to automate the scripts since it is a low-code automation platform The feature I like most about Testim is the…

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

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

"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."

"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple 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 can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."

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

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."

"The feature I like most about Testim is the record and playback capability, which does not require writing a lot of code."

"The pre-defined tests are a great help, specifically the custom JS test that allows us to be able to use custom code to test complicated elements or scenarios."

"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."

"I have seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes."

"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."

"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."

"The product is easy to use."

More Testim pros

Cons

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

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

"Sometimes the testing is slow."

"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."

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

"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."

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

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."

"In the last couple of months, I have experienced some downtime where it wasn't working."

"The accessibility reporting features could be more robust to be reported at the script level and allow users to map down to the step level."

"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."

"Testim sometimes fails due to stability issues. It doesn't always work consistently, especially after running multiple tests."

"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."

"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."

"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."

More Testim cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

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

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."

"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."

"The solution is not expensive."

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

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Educational Organization

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Testim?

The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Testim?

I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Testim?

More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 63% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Testim

Compared 42% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Testim

Compared 21% of the time

Functionize vs Testim

Compared 15% of the time

Testsigma vs Testim

Compared 6% of the time

Applitools vs Testim

Compared 4% of the time

More Testim Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

August 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Testim

July 2025

Download Testim 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

Testim is an end-to-end agile testing automation solution which utilizes machine learning for test authoring, execution, and maintenance. Users can create tests in minutes, run thousands of tests in parallel across different browsers, integrate with their existing CI/CD and collaboration tools, and more.

Testim

Sample Customers

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

Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Testim

July 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Testim

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Testim and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Testim report.

See our list of best Functional 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.