We performed a comparison between Bitbar and CrossBrowserTesting based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"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."
"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"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."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"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."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"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."
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, LambdaTest and Perfecto, whereas CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest, Sauce Labs and Automai AppVerify. See our Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting 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.
