CrossBrowserTesting vs Inflectra Rapise comparison

The compared SmartBear and Inflectra solutions aren't in the same category. SmartBear is ranked #28 in FT , and holds a 0.7% mindshare in the category. Inflectra is ranked #23 in TAt , with an average rating of 4.0, and holds a 0.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 85% of Inflectra users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

589 Views
449 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Inflectra Rapise

Read 7 Inflectra Rapise reviews

163 Views
79 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Inflectra Rapise

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Inflectra Rapise 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. Inflectra Rapise Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 847,959 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

CrossBrowserTesting

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Functional Testing Tools (28th)

Inflectra Rapise

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Robotic Process Automation (RPA) (30th), Test Automation Tools (23rd)

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. CrossBrowserTesting is designed for Functional Testing Tools and holds a mindshare of 0.7%, down 1.1% compared to last year.
Inflectra Rapise, on the other hand, focuses on Test Automation Tools, holds 0.1% mindshare, down 0.2% since last year.

Functional Testing Tools

Test Automation 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

WIllWorley

Software Consultant at The New Humanitarian

The tool needs to improve in the areas of security, though it is a versatile product

Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability. I spoke with Inflectra's executive account rep on the need to expand the tool's ability. The problem with Inflectra Rapise is that a lot of companies are still using SAP GUI. Inflectra has no intention of building Rapise in a way that allows it to interact with SAP GUI. Inflectra Rapise has very limited value for the companies I work with because they they still use SAP GUI since their top priority is SAP testing, and they want to get into automation, for which they need a tool that cannot only used to automate processes, but can also do end-to-end testing where you are not only using SAP GUI, but you are using the interface with old legacy systems that are still in use or with today's more modern technologies. In the future, the tool needs to increase its versatility. If I am at a company that uses 23 different technologies, like .NET Visual Basic, Oracle, SQL, or whatever, Inflectra Rapise needs to be made as a product that is an out-of-the-box usable tool for any technology.

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

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

"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."

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"It's pretty straightforward to set up."

"The most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility."

"We always use the product for end-to-end automation test cases."

Cons

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

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

"Sometimes the testing is slow."

"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."

"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."

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"The maintenance is very difficult. We've only been using the platform for three months, so I'm not sure if that will continue, but right now it's an observation I've had."

"It would be good if there could be more integration of Inflectra Rapise, since not all customers use the same tool for test management and automation integration."

"Inflectra Rapise needs to expand its ability."

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."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."

"I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means very good pricing."

"We pay no more than $50 annually for support of each one of the licenses."

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

847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

24%

Financial Services Firm

20%

Government

11%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Computer Software Company

33%

Government

18%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Inflectra Rapise?

The most valuable feature of the solution is its versatility.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Inflectra Rapise?

I rate the product's price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where ten means very good pricing.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Inflectra Rapise?

See all answers

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 68% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 19% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 13% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

No data available

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

April 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Inflectra Rapise

April 2025

Download Inflectra Rapise product report

Also Known As

No data available

Rapise

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.

SmartBear

Rapise is the most powerful and easy to use test automation tool on the market. It allows you to quickly and easily automate the testing of your web, mobile and desktop applications. Why spend hours manually regression testing your applications when you can have Rapise do it for you?

Inflectra

Sample Customers

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

- Soflab - RegEd - Intel - US Government

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise

March 2025

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

847,959 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Inflectra Rapise report.

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.