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

CrossBrowserTesting vs ZAPTEST 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
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ZAPTEST
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
31st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ZAPTEST is 1.5%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CrossBrowserTesting1.4%
ZAPTEST1.5%
Other97.1%
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.…
it_user362916 - PeerSpot reviewer
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

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 replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is that it gives us real OS devices that are available to test, and we don't have to ensure that all of the devices are up to date."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"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."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"We no longer need to have a full QA team, testing is more quickly and reliably reproduced, and scheduled daily tests assist in catching any bugs which fall through the cracks and make it to the production environment."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"Customer service is excellent."
"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."
"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."
"Customer service has been ZAPTEST's forte; very prompt and helpful."
"Our ROI is 100%."
"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."
 

Cons

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"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."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"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."
"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."
 

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
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Performing Arts
6%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Construction Company
14%
Healthcare Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
 

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 Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. ZAPTEST and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.