Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CrossBrowserTesting vs LambdaTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
27th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
LambdaTest
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 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 LambdaTest is 5.0%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Dinesh Saharan - PeerSpot reviewer
The tool reduces the manual effort needed and helps automate certain tasks for users
I won't be able to comment on what could be improved in the solution since I am not the one who handles LambdaTest. It is our company's IT team that takes care of LambdaTest. Improvements on a platform need to happen on a timely basis. If something is perfect, it doesn't mean that it doesn't need to improvise or improve, like in terms of adding new features. There should be some new features coming up or some performance improvisation over a period of time.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"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."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"Geolocation testing is as straightforward as ticking checkboxes of browsers, operating systems, and countries."
"LambdaTest offers geolocation testing in automation, which is amazing!"
"The most valuable features are that it's essentially on-demand, and you only focus on getting the code that needs to be executed without having to worry about the OS, hardware, etc."
"It is a scalable solution."
"LambdaTest supports multiple platforms like iOS across different devices and enables real-time testing."
"The technical support services are excellent."
"The support docs are precise and you can get started with them easily."
"The real devices feature is the most valuable feature for us."
 

Cons

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"I've also had some issues with the speed of certain API calls and the rendering of data. For example, when I'm onboarding data, the process can be slow."
"Their smart testing module needs improvement."
"It would be much easier for us to read the test if they provided dashboard analytics."
"Responsive testing UI is a bit cluttered, whereas the LT browser is much better to use."
"Mobile application testing will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"I didn't like the solution's technical support and how they communicated and tried to fix the issues of customers like me."
"There is scope for improvement in service account usage, LDAP integration, and adapting new devices and features."
 

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."
"It is 60% cheaper and there is no fuss in maintaining the lab, so we have more time to do the testing."
"It is free to start, which means you can actually see how it works and then take the decision to buy."
"LambdaTest is paid per execution."
"LambdaTest is on the cloud, offers both free and paid plans which start at $19 USD per month."
"The tool is not cheap, but it is not expensive."
"From the customer side, LambdaTest is cheaper for big company usage and works fine as other similar applications."
"LambdaTest is priced well, which is why we migrated to it."
"It is affordable as compared to similar SaaS solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
26%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
10%
Educational Organization
8%
Educational Organization
43%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Retailer
5%
 

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 LambdaTest?
We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LambdaTest?
BrowserStack was expensive compared to LambdaTest. We switched to LambdaTest to save money.
What needs improvement with LambdaTest?
There is scope for improvement in service account usage, LDAP integration, and adapting new devices and features. Challenges and glitches exist, such as handling notifications dynamically and gaps ...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Bringmax, Totpal, Nethhouse, Integreplanner, Cognizant, Vendisol, Clearscale, Edureka
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. LambdaTest and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.