Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting comparison

Bitbar and CrossBrowserTesting are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. Bitbar is ranked #25, while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked #26. Bitbar holds a 0.8% mindshare in FT, compared to CrossBrowserTesting’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 50% of Bitbar users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of CrossBrowserTesting users who would recommend it.

Bitbar

Read 3 Bitbar reviews

951 Views
685 Comparison Views

50% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

715 Views
572 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Bitbar

CrossBrowserTesting

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Bitbar and CrossBrowserTesting are competing in the software testing category. Despite Bitbar's competitive pricing, CrossBrowserTesting has the upper hand with its robust features.

Features: Bitbar offers strong support for mobile testing, along with integration with various CI/CD tools and adaptability for mobile-first environments. CrossBrowserTesting provides extensive browser testing capabilities, real-time testing on a wide range of browsers, and automation features, offering feature versatility.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Bitbar is known for a straightforward deployment process and reliable customer service with prompt assistance and detailed documentation. CrossBrowserTesting focuses on usability and efficient customer support with a variety of self-help resources, offering a slightly more comprehensive support framework.

Pricing and ROI: Bitbar offers a cost-effective setup with a flexible pricing model, allowing for scalable solutions and significant ROI, especially in mobile testing environments. CrossBrowserTesting is more premium in pricing, providing a worthwhile return through its extensive features and browser coverage.

To learn more, read our detailed Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting Report (Updated: January 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting

January 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 832,138 peers since 2012

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

Bitbar

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

25th

Average Rating

7.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Mobile App Platforms (17th)

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

26th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 0.8%, down from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.8%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

it_user1267398

Senior Automation Engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees

Has the ability to use different frameworks for testing although it is lacking in capability options

Setup depends on how you are using the product. In our case, it was quite simple. We did it ourselves and it didn't take much time, maybe a day. We used one person per team for setup, usually an engineer or developer. For each team, we had one person to assist with deployment. We have multiple teams so each team had someone dealing with setup. We now have two people working in the company who deal with the maintenance of the solution.

Read full review

Michael Hutchison

Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

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. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Game testing and the API for apps are good."

"Ability to use different frameworks."

"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."

"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."

"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."

"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."

"Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

Cons

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."

"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."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"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."

"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."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."

"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."

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

19%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Comms Service Provider

11%

Government

Computer Software Company

26%

Financial Services Firm

17%

Government

10%

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs Bitbar

Compared 47% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Bitbar

Compared 38% of the time

LambdaTest vs Bitbar

Compared 15% of the time

More Bitbar Competitors

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 66% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 20% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 14% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mobile App Platforms

January 2025

Download Bitbar product report

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

February 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Also Known As

Testdroid

No data available

Overview

Testdroid is a set of mobile software development and testing products by Bitbar Technologies Limited. Testdroid comprises three different products: Testdroid Cloud, Testdroid Recorder and Testdroid Enterprise. Testdroid provides an application programming interface through open source software available on GitHub. Testdroid can use testing frameworks, such as Robotium, Appium and uiautomator for native and Selenium for web applications, targeted for mobile application and game developers. Testdroid Cloud contains real Android and iOS powered devices, some of which are available for users. Testdroid Cloud lets users run tests simultaneously on cloud-based service. Testdroid Recorder is a tool for developers and testers for recording user-actions and producing JUnit based test cases on mobile application and games. Testdroid Recorder is available at the Eclipse marketplace. Testdroid Enterprise is a server software for managing automated testing on multiple real Android and iOS powered devices, supporting Gradle build system and Jenkins Continuous Integration.

SmartBear

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.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

Rovio, Paf, Supercell, NITRO Games, Seriously, AVG, Google, Bosch, Yahoo, Microsoft, Yandex, Mozilla, eBay, PayPal, TESCO, Cisco WebEx, Facebook, LinkedIn, skype, Subway

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Buyer's Guide

Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting

January 2025

Free Report: Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting

Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

832,138 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.