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

CrossBrowserTesting vs LambdaTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 27, 2025

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
LambdaTest
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (9th)
 

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 LambdaTest is 4.7%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
LambdaTest4.7%
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
Other94.0%
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.…
MJ
Head of QA at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Cross-platform testing and faster execution enhance testing efficiency
Don't worry about anything. Just go for it. There will not be an issue, as far as you know what you are buying and how you want to use it. Go for it, the platform is good. I rate the solution eight out of ten due to some areas needing improvement. I rate the overall solution eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"The solution is very easy to understand and has a user-friendly UI."
"Builds that took days to complete with in-house infrastructure were executed in a couple of hours."
"The Docker tunnel integration for local testing can be extremely useful to run on multiple instances in parallel."
"I was really surprised by LambdaTest; it was a very good service and for the price, I think it is a very good solution."
"The most valuable feature is the real-time testing, which helps you to test your website on more than two thousand combinations of browsers and operating systems."
"Automation and mobile testing have improved our efficiency."
"The technical support services are excellent."
"It is a scalable solution."
 

Cons

"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"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."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"If possible to simulate the finger pinch, it would make it more realistic."
"I feel that the automated screenshot testing takes a little longer on MacOS sometimes."
"Load flow compared to other stacks needs improvement."
"Performing automation testing from UI is a little slow and could be improved."
"I would like to see all of the features available in the freemium plan so that I can test them."
"The execution reporting can be improved for better integration between automation execution and accessibility platform reporting."
"Mobile application testing will be an added benefit for us if LambdaTest implements this really soon."
"LambdaTest needs to improve its speed and memory because it takes a long time to load."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing for LambdaTest is affordable, and one of the reasons we implemented it."
"It is free to start, which means you can actually see how it works and then take the decision to buy."
"From the customer side, LambdaTest is cheaper for big company usage and works fine as other similar applications."
"The pricing could be made cheaper."
"It is affordable as compared to similar SaaS solutions."
"The tool is not cheap, but it is not expensive."
"This is an affordable product."
"It is 60% cheaper and there is no fuss in maintaining the lab, so we have more time to do the testing."
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%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

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 Business10
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise9
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about LambdaTest?
We use the solution for automation testing and monitoring.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for LambdaTest?
The pricing of LambdaTest depends on the deal negotiated. It is cost-effective compared to competitors like BrowserStack ( /products/browserstack-reviews ) and Sauce Labs ( /products/sauce-labs-rev...
What needs improvement with LambdaTest?
The execution reporting can be improved for better integration between automation execution and accessibility platform reporting. There are specific use cases related to authentication and authoriz...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Bringmax, Totpal, Nethhouse, Integreplanner, Cognizant, Vendisol, Clearscale, Edureka
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. LambdaTest and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.