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

CrossBrowserTesting vs Galen Framework comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
29th
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
31st
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 September 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Galen Framework is 1.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Galen Framework1.5%
Other97.2%
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

"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."
"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."
"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"The technical support is good."
"Overall, this solution has proved useful to our organization, and with future improvements and the hopeful addition of devices, it will continue to be a tool we use daily."
"Our site's conversion from a static to an adaptive flexible layout was a major goal for our web site, and CrossBrowserTesting was an invaluable tool for trying out that new code."
"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

"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"I had some problems with the local connection, but there is someone that can help us always on customer support chat."
"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."
"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."
"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

"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."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
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: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.