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

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"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."
"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."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"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."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"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."
"This company offers end-to-end capabilities for test suite creation and execution. One feature that I particularly appreciate is the tagging system. Tags are highly valuable, as they allow you to assign tags to your test cases. When there's an impact in a specific area, you can search for and run all test cases associated with that tag. I find this functionality very useful."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"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."
 

Cons

"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."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"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."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"I didn't use it very heavily. One issue that I found was that there wasn't a quick way or a button to move Visual Basic scripts to TestComplete. We have a lot of such scripts in our organization, and it would be very useful to have some option to easily move these scripts. It is currently possible to convert these scripts to TestComplete, but it is not easy. I have to write some code, but everything is not available immediately."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"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 price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"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."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
25%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Government
11%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
14%
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.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.