CrossBrowserTesting vs Perfecto comparison

SmartBear and Perforce are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. SmartBear is ranked #28, while Perforce is ranked #20. SmartBear holds a 1.4% mindshare in FT, compared to Perforce’s 2.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of SmartBear users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Perforce users who would recommend it.

CrossBrowserTesting

Read 19 CrossBrowserTesting reviews

1,915 Views
1,685 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Perfecto

Read 23 Perfecto reviews

5,212 Views
3,179 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

CrossBrowserTesting

Perfecto

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Perfecto and CrossBrowserTesting compete in web and mobile application testing. Perfecto has an edge in feature complexity and integration capabilities, while CrossBrowserTesting stands out for its user-friendliness and accessibility.

Features: Perfecto provides a cloud-based testing environment supporting automation with Appium and Selenium, real device access, and comprehensive reporting capabilities. CrossBrowserTesting offers browser compatibility testing, live testing on real devices, and a user-friendly interface with fast session startups.

Room for Improvement: Perfecto could improve deployment speeds and simplify its complex feature set for less technical users. Enhancements in the response time of customer support and more intuitive integrations would benefit CrossBrowserTesting.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Perfecto offers a comprehensive deployment requiring technical expertise but provides robust support. CrossBrowserTesting offers simplified deployment and responsive customer service, streamlining integration and setup.

Pricing and ROI: Perfecto's extensive features may lead to higher initial costs, providing significant long-term ROI for complex projects. CrossBrowserTesting presents cost-effective pricing with immediate ROI for straightforward projects, appealing to budget-conscious teams.

To learn more, read our detailed CrossBrowserTesting vs. Perfecto Report (Updated: June 2026).

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Perfecto

June 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 908,800 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Perfecto

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

20th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Performance Testing Tools (13th), Mobile App Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (21st)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 2.5%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Perfecto	2.5%
CrossBrowserTesting	1.4%
Other	96.1%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

CharlesNetshivhera

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.…

Read full review

Roland Castelino

QA Lead at BMO Financial

Its reporting allows us to have a clear view regarding what tests have been executed

The most valuable would be their Live Stream analysis, where I can see the live analysis of all the executions on a single device or multiple devices as well as track them. The live analysis and reporting would be the single most valuable feature. We leverage Perfecto’s reporting and analytics a lot. From the CI Dashboard, it is mainly the status, which is the past, failure count, and time consumption, e.g., how much time did an average test or script take? Along with that, it provides the historical view compared to the previous result, e.g., am I a pass or fail? Also, the stack trace is very important. Whenever a pass occurs, we don't look beyond that. However, whenever a failure occurs, the stack trace information that it gives us is pretty critical for us when figuring out where failures lie. It gives a summary for the pass/fail count, total test count, the historical view, time consumption for each test as well as the total tests, and the stack rate of the failure. Perfecto's analytics are very important since we use them on a daily basis. We run our executions daily. After every execution, we pull information from the Perfecto reporting system and share that with our stakeholders. Having this information accurately reported is pretty important for us, so everybody is aware of the current status of the product. That way, we can evaluate the health of the product or environment against that which has been executed. Therefore, it helps make those real-time decisions and highlights the impact to the business. I found Perfecto to be pretty easy to use while executing against cross-platforms. The main reason is because the same script or test automation where we execute on multiple platforms has minimal changes that I need to do. Also, it is easy for me to set up an execution on one platform, then on another platform, either in parallel or one after the other. Parallel opportunities save me time. Once the execution has been completed across these different configurations, I can always check and compare, e.g., what are the differences and consistencies? We utilize Perfecto’s cloud-based lab to test across devices, browsers, and OSs. I use it occasionally for manual testing. Though, there are other team members who use it more frequently than I do. I use it mainly for executing my automated tests. We have the Perfecto lab, cloud devices, and machines. I can program my test to execute against any of those devices, which gives me more confidence in my product. I can compare and see how my product or application functionally behaves across these different devices and from a UI point of view, which helps me a lot. The device lab is extremely important to our testing operations. We rely on having multiple devices up and running all the time. Whenever we kick off an execution, there are multiple reasons why executions may get triggered: * CodeCommit * A scheduled job. * Might be on-demand by any stakeholder. We need the lab to be available, as we need devices up and running for executions to take place. Also, the devices help since they allow us to have parallel execution, and not just wait for a sequential device to become free and available. Therefore, volume is definitely key. It also gives us an opportunity to compare execution across platforms in that space. It is extremely important to you that the lab provides same-day access to new devices since we analyze that data every single day after execution. Perfecto provides their own framework called Quantum Framework. That is one option. The other option is, if I want to have my own framework, I can have a Java-based Maven project, take a Selenium library, AppiumLibrary, and REST Assured library, and utilize the open-source framework. It is easy for us to connect to Perfecto, no matter what framework we use, as long as it has these core libraries in it. I can design and structure it any way that I want. The execution will happen in Perfecto no matter what since they have support for these tools or libraries. It is pretty neat that way. We are not dependent on using just one particular framework to use Perfecto. While there are still some framework limitations, there is the opportunity to use multiple, different open-source frameworks, then pass the execution to Perfecto. We can use most frameworks, then design and craft it any way that we want, then just pass the execution to Perfecto.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues."

"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."

"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."

"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."

"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."

"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."

"We no longer need to have a full QA team, testing is more quickly and reliably reproduced, and scheduled daily tests assist in catching any bugs which fall through the cracks and make it to the production environment."

"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."

More CrossBrowserTesting pros

"It creates a faster production cycle and is quick to market. Things get deployed earlier because the testing happens on time. We can do a lot of panelization, so a lot of test phases can happen in a panel. People don't have to wait for a device to come to them. They can access multiple devices at the same time and do testing at the same time."

"We are able to offer a quality product that has been tested fully, which improves our customer satisfaction. That is a good thing. It has also reduced our IT infrastructure cost. We don't have to spend a lot on setting up infrastructure, which becomes redundant or obsolete very soon. It helps in offsetting that cost."

"Using the device lab has definitely helped us to scale our testing operations."

"The number one feature, which if we didn't have out-of-the-box would be missed, is the fact that we have video execution. That gives us the ability to view errors or defects in the progression, from beginning to the end of the video."

"We're working in Agile and we need results ASAP. The fact that the lab provides same-day access to new devices is extremely important to us."

"We have seen the biggest improvement in cost savings, initially saving $2.6 million a year just on roaming charges."

"Customer Service: It's been 100%. Technical Support: It's been 100%."

"Perfecto facilitates delivering the product on time, through the cloud devices, so that there is no impact to our end-users."

More Perfecto pros

Cons

"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."

"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."

"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."

"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."

"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."

"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."

"Sometimes the testing is slow."

More CrossBrowserTesting cons

"In iOS, it needs improvements with some limitations."

"We have had some issues with performance, which is something that should be improved."

"We feel that Perfecto is a little slow. If they could improve on that slowness in accessing the app, when we want to click a button, that would be great because we feel the difference. An improvement in the connectivity speed is required."

"Previously, we used the cradle. Every time the mobile was blocking it, we would have to ask Perfecto to provide another one. That took a lot of time away from us."

"The flakiness, or the accuracy, of the test execution can be improved. Also, the responsiveness of their cloud lab could be improved as well."

"It is slow compared to physical device testing. The interactive speed could be improved."

"We don't use Perforce's BlazeMeter with Perfecto. From my perspective, it's not really relevant."

"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances."

More Perfecto cons

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."

"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."

"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."

"Perfecto's price is excellent compared to other products with similar features. It was the lowest of the three we evaluated. We also established a partnership with Perfecto, so they provide discounts when we sell Perfecto projects and licenses to our customers."

"Perfecto has definitely saved us on the costs and efforts of having to maintain our own virtual test environment. We lost about 20 devices in the past to maintenance and audit. That was a massive loss for us, as a company, because we were giving devices to someone, but don't know whether we would get it back or not. Having those virtual labs, we don't need to worry about these kinds of things. We are easily saving $5,000 to $10,000 a month on device costing."

"I am not sure about its pricing, but from our perspective, licensing has been easy. Anytime I have new users or requests for users that want to get added, it's a very simple process. I just give the architectural owner of the product the name and email address, and they're able to easily add a new user. We don't have any issues in regards to getting licenses, but I don't have any insights into pricing."

"Although Perfecto is a good product for us to use, it is a bit expensive. It takes management a bit of work to find the appropriate funding for us to keep Perfecto. I imagine there could be some way to make it more accessible."

"It's definitely on the higher end of prices for this type of service."

"Pricing-wise, it is fine. It is not as expensive as what we used to have in the past from HP, IBM, and others. It is decently priced."

"This is an expensive solution compared to others, by 30% to 40%."

"Perfecto is about 30-40% cheaper than Device Anywhere. That was a big reason why we switched. Perfecto also solves some of the issues that we had with Device Anywhere. We have grown by 100% since we started to use Perfecto, and now we have devices roaming. When we look at the competition, we would still stick with Perfecto."

More Perfecto pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Construction Company

16%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Comms Service Provider

Performing Arts

Financial Services Firm

20%

Construction Company

12%

Outsourcing Company

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	5
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	1
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	23

Comparisons

BrowserStack vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 15% of the time

Sauce Labs vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 12% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 7% of the time

Zeenyx AscentialTest vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 4% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing Lab for Mobile and Web vs CrossBrowserTesting

Compared 4% of the time

More CrossBrowserTesting Competitors

BrowserStack vs Perfecto

Compared 9% of the time

Sauce Labs vs Perfecto

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs Perfecto

Compared 6% of the time

OpenText Core Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Cloud) vs Perfecto

Compared 5% of the time

TestMu AI (Formerly LambdaTest) vs Perfecto

Compared 5% of the time

More Perfecto Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting

August 2026

Download CrossBrowserTesting product report

Buyer's Guide

Perfecto

July 2026

Download Perfecto product report

Also Known As

No data available

Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web

Overview

CrossBrowserTesting provides comprehensive live and automated testing across browsers and devices, helping teams ensure functionality and compatibility through features like record and replay, and real device access.

CrossBrowserTesting is a robust tool for quality assurance professionals focusing on cross-browser compatibility and feature validation across multiple devices and operating systems. It assists in detecting platform inconsistencies early by simulating interactions and allows for troubleshooting front-end defects. Whether conducting manual or automated testing via its Selenium portal and API, it proves invaluable for assessing JavaScript performance and resolving browser-specific issues in web and mobile applications. The service is appreciated for responsive support and adaptation to feature requests, though it seeks enhancements in load times and UI streamlining.

What are some key features of CrossBrowserTesting?

Live Testing: Conduct live tests to verify functionality across browsers and devices.
Screenshot Functionality: Quickly capture and share page results with team members.
Record and Replay: Enhance test automation capabilities with this functionality.
Real Device Access: Perform tests on real devices under actual conditions.
Updated TLS Settings: Run tests with the latest security configurations.

What benefits should users seek in CrossBrowserTesting reviews?

Responsiveness: Notice how support teams address user inquiries and feature needs.
Flexibility: Observe flexibility in adding requested features for seamless testing.
Device Diversity: Consider the range of browser and device combinations offered.

In industries like e-commerce and SaaS platforms, CrossBrowserTesting is instrumental in providing rigorous testing, allowing companies to enhance user experiences by identifying cross-platform issues. It supports ensuring that applications perform effectively across devices and browsers, which is vital for customer retention and satisfaction.

SmartBear

Perfecto is a cloud-based testing platform that supports automated and manual testing processes across many devices and operating systems, facilitating cross-platform and real-time data access. Users experience seamless testing integrations, although improvements are sought in some areas.

Perfecto provides extensive mobile testing capabilities across iOS, Android, and more, with automation and enhanced reporting options such as video recordings. While it excels with Appium and Selenium integration for cross-platform consistency and CI Dashboard features, it faces challenges in iOS web testing and hybrid apps. Users indicate the need for better integration with test management tools, dashboard metrics improvements, and machine learning features. Cloud device response times and UI interactions could benefit from performance enhancements, while users desire longer report history and API automation advancements.

What are Perfecto's most important features?

Cloud-based Architecture: Access a vast array of devices and OS versions for testing scalability.
Automation: Supports Selenium and Appium for streamlined testing processes.
Enhanced Reporting: Offers video recordings to help validate tests thoroughly.
Cross-platform Testing: Execute tests across multiple platforms efficiently.
Real-time Data Access: Monitor tests via CI Dashboard and Live Stream.

What benefits or ROI can users expect from reviews?

Increased Device Availability: Quickly access the newest devices and software updates.
Improved Testing Speed: Allow faster test execution and feedback loops.
Scalability: Easily scale up or down with cloud-based resources.
Enhanced Productivity: Automate tests and streamline reporting for efficiency.

Perfecto has broad applications in industries such as retail, finance, and technology, where secure and scalable testing is critical. Organizations employ it in both private and public cloud environments for mobile, web, and API testing. Its ability to provide extensive device coverage and integration into existing CI/CD processes makes it integral for ensuring reliable mobile app performance and compatibility across platforms.

Perforce

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover

Buyer's Guide

CrossBrowserTesting vs. Perfecto

June 2026

Free Report: CrossBrowserTesting vs. Perfecto

Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Perfecto and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Perfecto report.

See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.

We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.