No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CrossBrowserTesting vs Galen Framework 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
27th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Galen Framework
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
29th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Galen Framework is 1.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CrossBrowserTesting1.5%
Galen Framework1.5%
Other97.0%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
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.…
HH
Senior Engineer at Bosch
Scalable with strong reporting capabilities
I haven't found any specific areas for modernization or improvement in Galen Framework yet. However, one observation I have made is about the auto-generation of Galen files. While this feature exists, functions don't seem to be available for automatically generating Galen values based on the specifications in the spec file, and this could be a potential improvement for Galen Framework.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We would not be able to provide our services without their tools."
"The most valuable feature is that it gives us real OS devices that are available to test, and we don't have to ensure that all of the devices are up to date."
"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices."
"CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers."
"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."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks good universally in minutes."
"What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
"In the market, not so many tools are able to check the layout with different screen resolutions as Galen can."
 

Cons

"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"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."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"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."
"There don't seem to be functions available for automatically generating Galen values based on the specifications in the spec file, and this could be a potential improvement for Galen Framework."
"When I use @Test(dataProvider), it causes a loop; the test result/report cannot accept the value of the data and show it in the test result/report."
 

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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Transportation Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Galen Framework and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.