Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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
34th
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 January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Galen Framework is 0.8%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Galen Framework0.8%
Other97.9%
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

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"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."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"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."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"What I like most about Galen Framework are its advantages, particularly its spec language and the spec file feature."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Performing Arts
9%
Government
8%
University
8%
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: January 2026.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.