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 8.7. SmartBear holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to Testim’s 3.5% 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
305 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Testim

Read 10 Testim reviews

1,581 Views
995 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: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Testim

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 859,129 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 June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Testim is 3.5%, 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

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

"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."

"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."

"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."

"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."

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

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

"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"The product is easy to use."

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

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

"The ease of learning and the small learning curve allowed us to scale the test scripts and the test suite quickly."

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

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

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

"It is a highly stable solution."

More Testim pros

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."

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

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

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

"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."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

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

"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."

"The product's areas of improvement include pricing considerations and additional features related to visual testing and PDF handling."

"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."

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

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

"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."

"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."

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

More Testim cons

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."

"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."

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

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

"The solution is not expensive."

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

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

859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

22%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Government

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

13%

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 71% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 17% of the time

Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Testim

Compared 45% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Testim

Compared 21% of the time

Functionize vs Testim

Compared 14% of the time

Testsigma vs Testim

Compared 7% of the time

Applitools vs Testim

Compared 4% of the time

More Testim Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

June 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Testim

May 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

June 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Testim

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

859,129 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.