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
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (4th), Test Automation Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.0%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable
We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…
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

"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."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"It was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"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."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition)."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
 

Cons

"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."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"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."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"In the cross-browser domain, it has a few snags with Microsoft Edge and Chrome; although, these problems are not critical."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The integration tools could be better."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"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."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"Buy modules on demand. If you have a four-person team and they will each automate tests only 25% of the time, it's better to buy a floating licence and share the tool during the work day."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"It comes with a high cost."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
6%
 

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 am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature. Occasion...
 

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: July 2025.
861,524 professionals have used our research since 2012.