We performed a comparison between BrowserStack 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."Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"The integration is very good."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"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."
"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."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"We had some execution issues."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
"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 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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
Earn 20 points
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". 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". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Bitbar, whereas CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify. See our BrowserStack 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.
