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

CrossBrowserTesting vs IBM DevOps Test UI comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
23rd
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Regression Testing Tools (11th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 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 IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.9%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM DevOps Test UI1.9%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other96.8%
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.…
HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"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."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"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."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
"As it is built on Ellipse/Java and costs less than other tools, it is recommended."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"It is 100% compatible with all sorts of database integrations and is compatible with all types of open source TFT-based applications, which makes it a great product to have."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester, which analyzes the changes in UI elements and allows me to automatically adapt and change my automation testing."
 

Cons

"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available."
"If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less."
"It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"The object repository used for identifying objects can be made better. It has been noticed that the RFT tool is unable to identify some objects, due to which we are unable to add them to the object repository."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
 

Also Known As

No data available
IBM Rational Functional Tester
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Edumate
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.