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."Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"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."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"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."
"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."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"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."
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 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.
