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

CrossBrowserTesting vs ZAPTEST 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
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ZAPTEST
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
31st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Test Automation Tools (25th)
 

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 ZAPTEST is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CrossBrowserTesting1.3%
ZAPTEST1.5%
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.…
it_user362916 - PeerSpot reviewer
System engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
We can write our codes just after the functional docs are prepared, and we can straight away start testing the application in the system testing phase itself.
* Using this tool, we can automate test cases even before the deployment of an application. This can be done by scanning objects from UI mock-ups or screenshots. * One script multi-run technology reduces scripting effort and budget by which you can run one unique script to test multiple platforms. * We can write one code and run it in multiple browsers (Chrome, IE, Firefox anything) and operating systems (Android, Windows, anything). * PDF validation, average colour validation, etc. are better and stable. * We can literally automate anything (not necessarily web applications) using ZAPTEST as it works exactly as a human eye and doesn't dig into application codes. * Partial OCR and block recognization are game changers. * JIRA and ALM integration

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"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."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"The technical support is good."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"Due to serious testing needs across platforms and devices, we found CrossBrowserTesting a useful tool as it has the capability for functional testing, UI testing, automated testing just on few clicks."
"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."
"Customer service has been ZAPTEST's forte; very prompt and helpful."
"The biggest thing this product has done for us is allow us to automate a feature that other commercial and open source tools couldn't do for us."
"Using ZAPTEST, we can write our codes just after the functional docs are prepared, and we can straight away start testing the application in the system testing phase itself."
"Our ROI is 100%."
"Customer service is excellent."
"Customer Service: This is where they truly shine! If we suggest a feature, a new version appears in days with that feature fully realized and working."
"On average, I get two cycles per week and that only requires the attention of two people; it saves us a lot of time and gets us to production quicker."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"The speed to connect to mobile devices needs improvement, and sometimes the connection fails."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"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."
"Automated testing could be improved."
"A few objects on the .NET platform are not getting identified precisely among similar objects."
"I would say the test results features could be made more advanced with options like pie charts, graphs, etc. To be able to visualize the data would be helpful to us."
"We cannot have more than one Object Repository for one test."
"The documentation is not keeping up with the rapid development, and updates are very fast."
"The save function should be fixed so that I no longer have to add a space to a step and then follow it with a backspace to reenable the save icon."
"We have used multiple data files types as inputs to our existing automation and this product is currently only supporting CSV."
 

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."
"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.
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%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Healthcare Company
11%
 

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 Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
AT&T, Ally Financial, Inc. Standard & Poors, Comcast, Boeing Employee Credit Union, Nordstroms, Bank of New Zealand, Aviva France, Delta Airlines, First National Bank of South Africa, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, American Well, SuperValu, 24 Hour Fitness, Inc., Lexis Nexis, Cspire Wireless, GE Intelligent Systems, Accenture, Shelter Mutual Insurance, Agco
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. ZAPTEST and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.