BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting comparison

BrowserStack and SmartBear are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while SmartBear is ranked #28. BrowserStack holds a 10.0% mindshare in FT, compared to SmartBear’s 1.0% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of SmartBear users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

4,859 Views
4,470 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

550 Views
495 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

CrossBrowserTesting

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

BrowserStack and CrossBrowserTesting are competitors in the cross-browser testing space. BrowserStack seems to have an edge with higher user-reported satisfaction owing to its comprehensive feature set and perceived value, while CrossBrowserTesting appeals to budget-focused users with its competitive pricing.

Features: BrowserStack offers live testing across various browsers and devices, automated Selenium testing, and integration with developer tools. CrossBrowserTesting distinguishes itself with local testing capabilities, advanced screenshot comparisons, and session replay features.

Room for Improvement: BrowserStack could enhance its pricing model to attract more budget-conscious users, improve its feature discovery during trial periods, and offer more free credits for trial users. CrossBrowserTesting could benefit from improving its screenshot accuracy, enhancing its integration with more development tools, and increasing platform stability under high loads.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BrowserStack is praised for its quick deployment and efficient customer support, facilitating smooth operations. CrossBrowserTesting offers a straightforward deployment and reliable support, though BrowserStack is often seen as faster.

Pricing and ROI: BrowserStack’s pricing is considered premium, justified by its extensive features, leading to high ROI if fully utilized. CrossBrowserTesting presents a more economical option, which appeals to those with tighter budgets but may result in varying ROI when compared purely on feature depth.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. CrossBrowserTesting Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. CrossBrowserTesting

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 868,759 peers since 2012

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

BrowserStack

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

CrossBrowserTesting

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

28th

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.0%, down from 11.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
BrowserStack	10.0%
CrossBrowserTesting	1.0%
Other	89.0%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users

I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Read full review

CharlesNetshivhera

Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees

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.…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."

"The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack."

"Maintenance of the solution is easy."

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."

"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."

"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."

"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."

More BrowserStack pros

"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."

"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."

"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."

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

"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."

"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."

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

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

Cons

"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."

"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."

"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."

"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."

"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."

"One of the biggest issues with BrowserStack is that if you don't have your network set up by the book, it's hard to get it to work with local desk machines."

"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."

"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."

More BrowserStack cons

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

"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."

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."

"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."

"The price is fine."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"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."

"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."

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

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?

My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.

See all answers

What needs improvement with BrowserStack?

In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 32% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 23% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 16% of the time

Tricentis Tosca vs BrowserStack

Compared 5% of the time

Katalon Studio vs BrowserStack

Compared 3% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 13% of the time

Eggplant Test vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 13% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

September 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

September 2025

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Overview

BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

BrowserStack

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.

SmartBear

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. CrossBrowserTesting

September 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. CrossBrowserTesting

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. CrossBrowserTesting and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. CrossBrowserTesting report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.