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

CrossBrowserTesting vs Qualibrate comparison

SmartBear and Qualibrate are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while Qualibrate is ranked #38. SmartBear holds a 0.7% mindshare in FT, compared to Qualibrate’s 0.2% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Qualibrate users who would recommend it.
CrossBrowserTesting
Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews
  • 589 Views
  • 449 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
Qualibrate
Read 5 Qualibrate reviews
  • 151 Views
  • 49 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

CrossBrowserTesting and Qualibrate are competitors in the testing solutions space. CrossBrowserTesting has an advantage with its comprehensive support and pricing structure, while Qualibrate excels in providing a robust feature set for those needing advanced functionality.

Features: CrossBrowserTesting offers extensive cross-browser testing, capabilities across multiple devices, and an array of platforms, providing real-world testing environments. It also supports screenshot testing and live testing sessions for seamless visual review. Qualibrate shines in test automation, integrated workflows for process documentation, and change management, making it ideal for enterprises requiring end-to-end testing solutions.

Room for Improvement: CrossBrowserTesting could improve its integration with more enterprise systems and enhance its automation capabilities. The performance speed during high-load scenarios can also be refined. Qualibrate could offer more cost-effective pricing tiers and simplify its user interface for easier adoption. Enhancing support for broader browser coverage would also be beneficial.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CrossBrowserTesting provides an easy deployment process and responsive customer service, perfect for teams needing quick resolutions. Qualibrate, on the other hand, involves a more comprehensive deployment tailored for complex integrations, with robust customer service that ensures thorough guidance and support.

Pricing and ROI: CrossBrowserTesting generally has lower setup costs and offers a faster return on investment through its straightforward pricing model. Qualibrate, despite higher initial costs, delivers value in the long run via efficiency gains attributed to its advanced features. CrossBrowserTesting is suitable for budget-conscious buyers, whereas Qualibrate appeals to those focused on feature-rich capabilities that justify higher upfront investments.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate Report (Updated: February 2025).
Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate
February 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 846,617 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
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Qualibrate
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
38th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (22nd), Test Automation Tools (39th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.7%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualibrate is 0.2%, up from 0.1% 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.
Read full review
FD
Reduces our testing time significantly, enabling us to release more frequently
The most valuable feature is the way it works, the usability. From the first setup, the user interface is the most beautiful. It's very nice the way you can recover things and make it work. We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate. Because everything we do is in SAP Solution Manager, we are now able to do test automatization, combined with Qualibrate. All the defects are available in SAP Solution Manager and all the changes will be in Qualibrate, immediately. From Qualibrate, we see whether tests are good or not. We can create a test-related incident in Solution Manager for those that are not good, and Test Suite in Solution Manager will notify the person who has to rebuild it. That works very nicely.
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

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"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 must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"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."
More CrossBrowserTesting pros
"It is the principle functionality that we're leveraging, which really can be defined as recordings and playbacks. So, you record the scripts that you want to execute and you also want to be able to playback. So, these are the features that we are largely leveraging. There are flows and scenarios, and they are the design aspects that fit within the playback and the recording solution. For me, they are the core of Qualibrate, and that's what we're using."
"The widget's ease of use is the most valuable, which means it allows you or business people to record the automated test scripts. In most cases, it is really good because it is the business people who actually know how the system is being used. The simplicity of the design is valuable, where you can record your transactions, then create your automated scripts. You can automate it at the same time, and the automation features are cool."
"The most valuable feature is that it's user-friendly."
"We use the solution’s Test Planning & test Execution Scheduling features, and they are very important. They are easy to work with. We use SAP Solution Manager, and Qualibrate works with it, enabling us to manage all our tests, taking them from Solution Manager directly into Qualibrate."
"What Qualibrate makes very easy to do is to record a process flow. Within five minutes you have a clear document produced by Qualibrate. Instead of using Word, and copying and pasting pictures into it from printscreens, within five minutes what you have was easy to make and it's easy for users to use."
 

Cons

"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"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."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
More CrossBrowserTesting cons
"There is a module that we would like to have. We would like Qualibrate to design a requirements module so that we can design our testing, our flows, and our scenarios based on our actual requirements. Right now, we're doing that, but we're having to do it outside of Qualibrate. For example, in Excel, we might have a list of 50, 60, or 70 different requirements and combinations of tests that need to be executed, and since that module doesn't exist in Qualibrate, we're doing it offline. We have already vocalized that wishlist to them, and they have acknowledged it, but I have no idea when they're going to get around to deploying something like that. It is probably number one on our list."
"What could be improved would be the intuitiveness of the reporting engine. It does have reporting, i.e., a dashboard, but it is preconfigured, predefined KPIs and datasets. That could be improved because the datasets don't have descriptions, so you really need to know what you're doing. Whereas, it would be great if it could have more descriptions and be easy to build your own KPIs."
"Not everything in SAP works well with Qualibrate. There is a development tool called xpath and you have to program it. We always thought it wouldn't be necessary to program it with Qualibrate, that everything could be solved by Qualibrate without programming, but you have to program some things. Using xpath is more complicated, and not easy for everybody. It would be helpful if there were a no-code solution for this."
"We had an issue with SAP when using PDF forms. That was something that was not supported by Qualibrate, but we solved that issue by choosing another solution. That was the only wish we had with Qualibrate."
"What I would really like to see is if you are running scripts in Qualibrate, and there is a defect, then you can have it automatically raise a defect in your own ticketing system."
 

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."
"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 worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"We signed a three-year contract and the pricing is in line with our expectations."
"I compared the prices of the 15 solutions we looked at. Qualibrate was the most valuable because it could be integrated with SAP Solution Manager."
"Qualibrate is realistically priced. I can't compare it because I haven't looked at other tools, but I think it is good. What I like is you can simply add new users, if you want. It has a license model that comes with different types of users, which I think makes sense."
"We probably have 10 licenses, but I don't know what are the costs or anything like that."
"Automated testing is not cheap. But other companies, for example, Panaya, required a minimum of 10 licenses. Qualibrate allowed us to start small, with three licenses, with a price that was competitive within the market."
report
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
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Government
12%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 67% of the time
Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Tricentis Tosca vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 19% of the time
Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting Logo
Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting
Compared 13% of the time
More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors
No data available
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting
April 2025
CrossBrowserTesting reportDownload CrossBrowserTesting product report
Buyer's Guide
Qualibrate
March 2025
Qualibrate reportDownload Qualibrate product report
 

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
Undertaking a software transformation journey is a high risk. We offer a simple yet powerful solution to minimize the risk and reduce the implementation resources up to 80%.

Qualibrate is the cloud solution for SAP & web apps test automation, like Salesforce: it has the power of simplicity, customization, and integration with the most CI/CD tools. Test cases are highly reusable and easily maintainable.

All you need to do is to record a Business Process: user actions, test data, and technical information will be captured. The recording will be your unique source of truth for running Automated tests and Manual tests, but also for Learning.
Qualibrate
 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
AirFrance KLM, Provincie Noord Holland, Ministerie van Defensie, Nouryon, Bell Helicopter, Textron,
Buyer's Guide
CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate
February 2025
Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Qualibrate 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.