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

CrossBrowserTesting vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

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
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
 

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 SmartBear TestComplete is 4.8%, down from 5.6% 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.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"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."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
 

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."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could 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."
"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."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"Error handling features in the tool are a little limited."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"There could be API interfaces with this tool."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"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."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
"The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,564 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%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
7%
 

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 SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,564 professionals have used our research since 2012.