CrossBrowserTesting vs ZAPTEST comparison

Read 7 ZAPTEST reviews

786 Views
597 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

ZAPTEST and CrossBrowserTesting compete in the software testing category. ZAPTEST has the upper hand in cost-effectiveness and integration, while CrossBrowserTesting stands out with its extensive features and platform versatility.

Features: ZAPTEST provides versatile automation capabilities, script development for multiple environments, and script reusability. CrossBrowserTesting offers live browser testing, a diverse range of testing platforms for cross-browser compatibility, and screenshot comparison tools.

Room for Improvement: ZAPTEST could improve in offering more advanced reporting features, increasing cloud integration options, and expanding support for additional programming languages. CrossBrowserTesting might enhance its interface for easier navigation, reduce lag times in live testing sessions, and provide more flexible pricing plans tailored to smaller teams.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: ZAPTEST integrates seamlessly with existing systems and offers thorough customer support during deployment, providing a more personalized service. CrossBrowserTesting offers quick cloud-based deployment suitable for agile environments and immediate support responses, aiding rapid execution needs.

Pricing and ROI: ZAPTEST generally offers a lower initial setup cost, attracting budget-conscious organizations with promising ROI through automation efficiency. CrossBrowserTesting poses a larger initial investment yet delivers significant ROI by enhancing product quality and functionality through its extensive browser testing capabilities.

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

CrossBrowserTesting vs. ZAPTEST

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

ZAPTEST

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

29th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Automation Tools (27th)

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 ZAPTEST is 1.2%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
CrossBrowserTesting	1.6%
ZAPTEST	1.2%
Other	97.2%

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

it_user362916

System engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees

We can write our codes just after the functional docs are prepared, and we can straight away start testing the application in the system testing phase itself.

* Using this tool, we can automate test cases even before the deployment of an application. This can be done by scanning objects from UI mock-ups or screenshots. * One script multi-run technology reduces scripting effort and budget by which you can run one unique script to test multiple platforms. * We can write one code and run it in multiple browsers (Chrome, IE, Firefox anything) and operating systems (Android, Windows, anything). * PDF validation, average colour validation, etc. are better and stable. * We can literally automate anything (not necessarily web applications) using ZAPTEST as it works exactly as a human eye and doesn't dig into application codes. * Partial OCR and block recognization are game changers. * JIRA and ALM integration

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

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

"We would not be able to provide our services without their tools."

"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices."

"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."

"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."

"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."

"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."

"Due to serious testing needs across platforms and devices, we found CrossBrowserTesting a useful tool as it has the capability for functional testing, UI testing, automated testing just on few clicks."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"The biggest thing this product has done for us is allow us to automate a feature that other commercial and open source tools couldn't do for us."

"Our ROI is 100%."

"On average, I get two cycles per week and that only requires the attention of two people; it saves us a lot of time and gets us to production quicker."

"Customer Service: This is where they truly shine! If we suggest a feature, a new version appears in days with that feature fully realized and working."

"Using ZAPTEST, we can write our codes just after the functional docs are prepared, and we can straight away start testing the application in the system testing phase itself."

"Customer service is excellent."

"Customer service has been ZAPTEST's forte; very prompt and helpful."

Cons

"Sometimes the testing is slow."

"Automated testing could be improved."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

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

"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."

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

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

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"The documentation is not keeping up with the rapid development, and updates are very fast."

"We have used multiple data files types as inputs to our existing automation and this product is currently only supporting CSV."

"A few objects on the .NET platform are not getting identified precisely among similar objects."

"The save function should be fixed so that I no longer have to add a space to a step and then follow it with a backspace to reenable the save icon."

"We cannot have more than one Object Repository for one test."

"I would say the test results features could be made more advanced with options like pie charts, graphs, etc. To be able to visualize the data would be helpful to us."

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."

"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."

Information not available

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

21%

Construction Company

11%

Outsourcing Company

10%

Healthcare Company

10%

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	5

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 19% 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

SmartBear TestComplete vs ZAPTEST

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs ZAPTEST

Compared 13% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing for Developers vs ZAPTEST

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs ZAPTEST

Compared 7% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs ZAPTEST

Compared 7% of the time

More ZAPTEST Competitors

Product Reports

CrossBrowserTesting

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Download ZAPTEST 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

ZAPTEST is software test automation solution for testing applications cross-platform. ZAPTEST allows testing any GUI based software on any modern OS mobile or conventional that includes iOS; Android; WinMo; Blackberry; Windows; Mac; and Linux. ZAP 1Script technology allows users to script test procedure once and execute it on any correspondent application on any platform and environment. ZAP MultiRun technology offers execution of the same test script on multiple workstations and mobile devices at once, and expedites time to test execution. zapFARM offers mobile and conventional device management, by using distributed and multi-site devices and management of devices and users. ZAPTEST is software test automation solution for testing applications cross-platform. ZAPTEST allows testing of any GUI based software on any modern OS, mobile or conventional including iOS; Android; WinMo; Blackberry; Windows; Mac; and Linux, as well as supports testing of Agile and CI development. ZAP main technologies are ZAPTEST; ZAP-fiX; MultiRun; and zapFARM With over 15 years of industry experience implementing test automation processes ZAP also offers professional help to allows enterprises with testing best practices implementing ZAPTEST. Using ZAPTEST test automation teams reducing time to test development and maintenance, expedite test execution cross-platform and manage devices under test remotely within organization

Sample Customers

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

AT&T, Ally Financial, Inc. Standard & Poors, Comcast, Boeing Employee Credit Union, Nordstroms, Bank of New Zealand, Aviva France, Delta Airlines, First National Bank of South Africa, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, American Well, SuperValu, 24 Hour Fitness, Inc., Lexis Nexis, Cspire Wireless, GE Intelligent Systems, Accenture, Shelter Mutual Insurance, Agco

CrossBrowserTesting vs. ZAPTEST