CrossBrowserTesting vs IBM DevOps Test UI comparison

SmartBear and IBM are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while IBM is ranked #29. SmartBear holds a 0.9% mindshare in FT, compared to IBM’s 0.6% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of IBM users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

850 Views
669 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

IBM DevOps Test UI

Read 8 IBM DevOps Test UI reviews

909 Views
543 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

IBM DevOps Test UI

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and IBM DevOps Test UI 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.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI Report (Updated: November 2024).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI

November 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 816,406 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

28th

Average Rating

9.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

IBM DevOps Test UI

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

29th

Average Rating

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Regression Testing Tools (15th)

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 0.6%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

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

Hellen Zhang

Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada

Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support

The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.

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

"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."

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

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

"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."

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

"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."

"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 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."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."

"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."

"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."

"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."

Cons

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

"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."

"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."

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."

"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."

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."

"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."

"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."

"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."

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."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"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."

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that 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

816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

24%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Government

Educational Organization

Computer Software Company

24%

Financial Services Firm

18%

Government

Real Estate/Law Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 54% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 22% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 13% of the time

Bitbar vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Katalon Studio vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 25% of the time

Selenium HQ vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 22% of the time

HCL OneTest vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 22% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 17% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs IBM DevOps Test UI

Compared 14% of the time

More IBM DevOps Test UI Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

November 2024

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Functional Testing Tools

November 2024

Download IBM DevOps Test UI product report

Also Known As

No data available

IBM Rational Functional Tester

Learn More

SmartBear

Video not available

IBM

Overview

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.

IBM DevOps Test UI, also known as Rational Functional Tester, is a software tool designed for automated functional and regression testing of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and data-driven testing. It automates the testing process to ensure application functionalities work as intended and identifies any issues caused by new code changes. The tool is tailored for GUI testing, allowing for easy recording and playback of test cases that interact with UI elements like buttons and menus. It supports data-driven testing, enabling comprehensive tests across various data sets. Additionally, it offers visual editing features with screenshot representations for easy test creation and ScriptAssure technology to maintain test scripts even if the UI changes.

Sample Customers

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

Edumate

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI

November 2024

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.