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 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."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"The technical support is good."
"It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"Overall, the product does what we need and does it well."
"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."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Customer service is excellent."
"Customer service has been ZAPTEST's forte; very prompt and helpful."
"Our ROI is 100%."
 

Cons

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"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 had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"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."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"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."
"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."
"A few objects on the .NET platform are not getting identified precisely among similar objects."
"We have used multiple data files types as inputs to our existing automation and this product is currently only supporting CSV."
"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."
 

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."
"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."
"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.
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
18%
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.