BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
BrowserStack Logo
8,670 views|6,779 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
SmartBear Logo
1,251 views|940 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and CrossBrowserTesting based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
To learn more, read our detailed Functional Testing Tools Report (Updated: May 2024).
771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile.""The integration is very good.""It is a scalable solution.""Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable.""The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.""It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering.""I've worked on testing integrations with BrowserStack, particularly with a platform called IT. This involves testing the registration process, including receiving verification codes on devices and phones. BrowserStack has been excellent for testing these integrations, providing a seamless workflow development experience.""Maintenance of the solution is easy."

More BrowserStack Pros →

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices.""Video recording of the script running in a cloud server.""I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems.""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.""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.""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.""I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."

More CrossBrowserTesting Pros →

Cons
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier.""There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required.""I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms.""Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience.""One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines.""While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA.""The solution is slow.""Customer support could be better. We tried to implement and explore this product with the vendor or reseller's help, but we haven't had any good response about the product."

More BrowserStack Cons →

"Sometimes the testing is slow.""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.""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.""I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on.""This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices.""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.""Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

More CrossBrowserTesting Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "This solution costs less than competing products."
  • "The price is fine."
  • "There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
  • "BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
  • "The price of BrowserStack is high."
  • "Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
  • "My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
  • "As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
  • More BrowserStack 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."
  • "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."
  • "It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
  • "SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
  • More CrossBrowserTesting Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
    771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
    Top Answer:My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
    Top Answer:I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.
    Ask a question

    Earn 20 points

    Ranking
    4th
    Views
    8,670
    Comparisons
    6,779
    Reviews
    14
    Average Words per Review
    372
    Rating
    8.0
    28th
    Views
    1,251
    Comparisons
    940
    Reviews
    0
    Average Words per Review
    0
    Rating
    N/A
    Comparisons
    Learn More
    Overview
    BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

    CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

    • Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
    • Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.
    Sample Customers
    Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
    St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company55%
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Marketing Services Firm9%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company16%
    Financial Services Firm14%
    Manufacturing Company7%
    Retailer7%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm21%
    Healthcare Company14%
    Computer Software Company14%
    University7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company19%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Government10%
    Comms Service Provider6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business30%
    Midsize Enterprise26%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business19%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise67%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business35%
    Midsize Enterprise22%
    Large Enterprise43%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business24%
    Midsize Enterprise16%
    Large Enterprise60%
    Buyer's Guide
    Functional Testing Tools
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: May 2024.
    771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    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, Sauce Labs and Automai AppVerify.

    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.