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 September 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.9%, down from 5.2% 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%
CrossBrowserTesting0.9%
Other94.2%
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

"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."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"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."
"Runs in different remote machines. We have multiple versions of the software being tested."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good."
"The product has many features."
"The integration with various tools is important."
"SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition)."
 

Cons

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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 had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"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."
"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."
"Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"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."
"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."
"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 initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
 

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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"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."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"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 license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"The solution's licensing cost has increased because it has moved to some new SLM-based licenses."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"My advice so far, is that while it’s not quite as powerful and easy to use as UFT, its price tag more than makes up for it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
 

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: August 2025.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.