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
26th
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
8th
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 November 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.9%, up from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SmartBear TestComplete4.9%
CrossBrowserTesting1.0%
Other94.1%
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

"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 have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"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."
"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."
"Record and Replay is the most used functionality for us, as we can record the test cases and play them on multiple combinations of platforms."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"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 solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"The product has many features."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps."
"The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
 

Cons

"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The solution’s customer support should be improved."
"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 initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"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."
 

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."
"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."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"The price is less, compared to other products, such as QTP."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"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."
"It comes with a high cost."
"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."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
873,209 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise32
 

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: September 2025.
873,209 professionals have used our research since 2012.