CrossBrowserTesting Reviews

Manual and automated (Selenium) continuous testing of development and production websites to protect against broken code deployments.

• We no longer need to have a full QA team.
• Testing is more quickly and reliably reproduced. 
• Scheduled daily tests assist in catching any bugs which fall through the cracks and make it to the production environment.

• Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users.
• The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues.

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.

We primarily use CrossBrowserTesting to troubleshoot front-end issues in various browsers and devices.

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.

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.

I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same. For example, I have had to figure out how to get to Safari or whatever program I needed. If these issues were resolved, it would be a huge improvement. 

I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems.

We work in the web design/development sector. It is really important for us to bring the total warranty of sites to 100% mobile responsive. It is really difficult, but with CrossBrowserTesting, we can do all the testing that we need to do with it.

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.

The possibility of having a real-time web service with a large number of real devices with different operating systems and browser versions is a great advantage for us. 

Other features from CrossBrowserTesting, like screenshots or screen recordings, are a nice plus in the service.

• The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain. 
• The future possibility to do a web inspector to debug any site, on any device in any OS, would be a really nice feature for the service. This means not just with the web inspector included from each web navigator (Firefox, Chrome, IE, etc.).

Our primary use cases for this solution are:

• Feature validation of our product on multiple OS/mobile/browser combinations
• To expose platform-specific issues early in the testing life cycle
• To find usability issues and differences between desktop versus mobile versus tablets

This solution helps in the functional verification and regression testing phases of our product, as our solution is used on multiple OS/mobile/browser combinations.

Using CrossBrowserTesting, we run the test suites on multiple OS/mobile combinations with different browsers. Thereby, the platform-specific issues are discovered at an early stage.

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.

Live testing with the previous history of test cases is a useful feature.

Screenshot testing is a useful feature for applying the same test case on multiple 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.

It would be helpful to have more help notes or videos to show how to build an automation framework.

We did not use another solution prior to this.

It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

I used CrossBrowserTesting for testing on different browsers on desktop and phone environments with different browser versions for our sites.

CrossBrowserTesting helps a lot with the responsive testing in different mobiles and browsers and has good tools for our testing like taking videos and screenshots.

The local connection is pretty awesome at the moment of testing the developments created at home, and the tool getting the proof of your testing is awesome (videos and screenshots).

I had some problems with the local connection, but there is someone that can help us always on customer support chat. They solved my problem.

The customer service was pretty great. Andrew made sure to get all the information needed to send my issue to the technical support.

No. CrossBrowserTesting is my first tool and a pretty good one to use anytime.

I use CrossBrowserTesting to run Selenium tests in the cloud. I have created a custom QA automation tool for my company and integrated it with CrossBrowserTesting via the Selenium API. I send the commands to CrossBrowserTesting over the API and my tests get executed in the desired browsers/OS combinations. I also use the CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API to retrieve a full list of all browser/OS combos so my QA automation interface can allow users to choose what browsers they want to test.

In addition, our entire front-end team uses the CrossBrowserTesting live testing feature to investigate browser issues and do manual QA testing.

The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA. We can access a specific browser/OS/device configuration extremely quick and our clients benefit from this as well, since we can test over a wider range of browsers, browser versions, and devices. Our automated testing tool takes screenshots as the tests execute, so now we also have the ability to archive our QA tests.

What sets CrossBrowserTesting apart from the rest is their ability to quickly respond to the needs of their customers. Every time I contacted support with a feature that I really needed, they were able to enhance their offerings to accommodate me. For example, I needed the ability to initiate a session with updated TLS settings (regardless of the browser/OS default settings) so I could run automated tests in legacy browsers. In less than two weeks, the team had added this enhancement for me. 

Another great thing about CrossBrowserTesting is I can quickly access sessions and interact with the browser with virtually no lag time. CrossBrowserTesting recently introduced a WebRTC option which speeds up the experience even further. With other cloud testing tools, I have experienced lag times and inconsistencies (in regard to spinning up a new session). I have very rarely had issues with CrossBrowserTesting in this regard. If there are any issues, the support team responds immediately. There are always honest and forthcoming about what caused the problem and how they are fixing it.

The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved. I was able to figure it out fairly easily, but I imagine some people might have trouble.

No issues.

No issues.

The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive.

We previously used Sauce Labs. They were too expensive and their support team was always opaque in their answers to our questions.

We did the implementation in-house.

I tried Sauce Labs and BrowserStack.

My primary use for this product revolves around simulating various mobile and tablet responses to company web apps on an internal FT environment.

Initially what attracted us to the product was that it was a lot faster than what we previously used to simulate our tests. Aside from speeding up our processes, it also allowed us to tie in our automated test scenarios and integrate our reporting tools to make the entire process efficient and hassle free. This helped FT past our quality gates and confidently deliver our products past and on-time.

I am a big fan of the clean, uncluttered layout of the site on landing as well as the aids given to you when testing mobile products, especially the keyboard posting tools which negate tapping out my individual data entries. The extensive range of products available to simulate is also something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests (something no FT tester should sneer at).

Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves.

The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation.

Use of CBT to test the UI in different mobile devices since the experience is different with a real device vs. resizing window browser. Also, it's very useful to test the UI in Internet Explorer.

It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues.

I am frequently using live testing to verify the UI in different devices and IE browser. Also, I've started using a screenshot, but it is not very useful for me, since the page does not load properly without loading another CSS file.

• The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails. 
• Possibility to use web inspector in all devices (it is not available for OS devices). 
• Also, easy access to run local files. I need to run a CSS file before loading the website, and sometimes, it does not work.
  

I had used BrowserStack; we switched to CBT because it is easy to have parallel users.