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
27th
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
30th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ZAPTEST is 1.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CrossBrowserTesting1.5%
ZAPTEST1.6%
Other96.9%
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."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks good universally in minutes."
"We would not be able to provide our services without their tools."
"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."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"Customer service is excellent."
"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."
"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."
"Customer service has been ZAPTEST's forte; very prompt and helpful."
"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: This is where they truly shine! If we suggest a feature, a new version appears in days with that feature fully realized and working."
 

Cons

"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"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."
"A few objects on the .NET platform are not getting identified precisely among similar objects."
"We cannot have more than one Object Repository for one test."
"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 have used multiple data files types as inputs to our existing automation and this product is currently only supporting CSV."
"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 documentation is not keeping up with the rapid development, and updates are very fast."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Transportation Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Healthcare Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Construction 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: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.