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

CrossBrowserTesting vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
9.0
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
Number of Reviews
74
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 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 SmartBear TestComplete is 4.8%, down from 6.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison - PeerSpot reviewer
Jul 7, 2020
Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems
When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a variety of browsers and devices. CBT works with our testing environment and development site.  Our greatest concern is universal appearance and functionality, thus we test a great many…
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 25, 2024
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
We have applications related to power plants, and we use the solution to do 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…

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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition)."
"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."
"Selenium integration."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
 

Cons

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"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."
"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."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The pricing is the constraint."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"It is very hard to read the test log generated by TestComplete Executor if the log file is very big. TestComplete Executor is a small tool for just running the TestComplete test framework (not for developing)."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"Product is not stable enough and it crashes often."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"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."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
24%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
9%
Educational Organization
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
8%
 

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?
The solution's pricing is too high. On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing nine and a half out of ten.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The learning curve of the solution's user interface is a little high for new users.
 

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: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.