CrossBrowserTesting Reviews

A wide variety of browser testing for most of my company's internal and frequently used websites.

CrossBrowserTesting improved my organization because it eliminates the need for a physical device with a tester to cover our used browsers. This saves the company money and time.

The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature. It also supports browsers and offers version selection to cover what we need.

Sometimes the testing is slow. The loading time could be improved for faster performance.

I always had a wonderful response and great support from the customer service.

We had to use a physical device which was not available. We also had other technical problems that delayed testing time.

It isn't very pricey and it always has a great support system available.

No, my company chose, and I feel that they have made the best choice.

Where I work as a QA analyst, we have developed a web app to help life scientists organize their labs and order lab supplies from a variety of manufacturers at low prices. 

My primary use case of CrossBrowserTesting is to ensure new features that we have launched, or are about to launch, look correct and work as expected on all the most common browsers across the most common OSs.

This solution improves the customer experience using Quartzy. 

It has saved us time and money on our web app. It would taken time to look across many devices and browser versions every time that we made changes to the front-end of the application. It also means less "broken pages" are seen by users by the time a feature is ready to launch.

I use the screenshot functionality most frequently and live testing on occasion. I have also used the record and replay functionality once or twice.

With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks good universally in minutes. It is also shareable to all my coworkers, so reporting issues to engineering are simple.

A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc.

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those.

We did not have a previous solution.

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.

We also looked at Selenium, Rainforest QA, and BrowserStack.

Go for it! 

We work in the web design/development sector. It is really important for us to bring the total warranty of sites to 100% mobile responsive. It is really difficult, but with CrossBrowserTesting, we can do all the testing that we need to do with it.

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.

The possibility of having a real-time web service with a large number of real devices with different operating systems and browser versions is a great advantage for us. 

Other features from CrossBrowserTesting, like screenshots or screen recordings, are a nice plus in the service.

• The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain. 
• The future possibility to do a web inspector to debug any site, on any device in any OS, would be a really nice feature for the service. This means not just with the web inspector included from each web navigator (Firefox, Chrome, IE, etc.).

We have a bunch of JavaScript libraries which are used on thousands of websites for showing advertisements. 

When I had just joined the company, there were no tests at all and the deploying process was very unpredictable. Therefore, we decided to cover the libraries by unit and integration tests.

During first test stages of implementation, CrossBrowserTesting's live testing was helpful because my company is more about the server's programming and we do not have real devices for the manual testing of the UI. Then, 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.

At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development. Live testing helps us to debug problems across all 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. I would like CrossBrowserTesting's engineers to deal with this issue.

I use CrossBrowserTesting to run Selenium tests in the cloud. I have created a custom QA automation tool for my company and integrated it with CrossBrowserTesting via the Selenium API. I send the commands to CrossBrowserTesting over the API and my tests get executed in the desired browsers/OS combinations. I also use the CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API to retrieve a full list of all browser/OS combos so my QA automation interface can allow users to choose what browsers they want to test.

In addition, our entire front-end team uses the CrossBrowserTesting live testing feature to investigate browser issues and do manual QA testing.

The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA. We can access a specific browser/OS/device configuration extremely quick and our clients benefit from this as well, since we can test over a wider range of browsers, browser versions, and devices. Our automated testing tool takes screenshots as the tests execute, so now we also have the ability to archive our QA tests.

What sets CrossBrowserTesting apart from the rest is their ability to quickly respond to the needs of their customers. Every time I contacted support with a feature that I really needed, they were able to enhance their offerings to accommodate me. For example, I needed the ability to initiate a session with updated TLS settings (regardless of the browser/OS default settings) so I could run automated tests in legacy browsers. In less than two weeks, the team had added this enhancement for me. 

Another great thing about CrossBrowserTesting is I can quickly access sessions and interact with the browser with virtually no lag time. CrossBrowserTesting recently introduced a WebRTC option which speeds up the experience even further. With other cloud testing tools, I have experienced lag times and inconsistencies (in regard to spinning up a new session). I have very rarely had issues with CrossBrowserTesting in this regard. If there are any issues, the support team responds immediately. There are always honest and forthcoming about what caused the problem and how they are fixing it.

The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved. I was able to figure it out fairly easily, but I imagine some people might have trouble.

No issues.

No issues.

The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive.

We previously used Sauce Labs. They were too expensive and their support team was always opaque in their answers to our questions.

We did the implementation in-house.

I tried Sauce Labs and BrowserStack.

We are using this feature to run our application in all the updated browsers popularly used.       

It has increased the speed of our regression testing.                                      

• Cross browser testing
• Live test
• Video recording of the script running in a cloud server.

There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting.                                

Manual and automated (Selenium) continuous testing of development and production websites to protect against broken code deployments.

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

• Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users.
• The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues.

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.

We primarily use CrossBrowserTesting to troubleshoot front-end issues in various browsers and devices.

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.

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.

I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same. For example, I have had to figure out how to get to Safari or whatever program I needed. If these issues were resolved, it would be a huge improvement. 

I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems.

My primary use for this product revolves around simulating various mobile and tablet responses to company web apps on an internal FT environment.

Initially what attracted us to the product was that it was a lot faster than what we previously used to simulate our tests. 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. This helped FT past our quality gates and confidently deliver our products past and on-time.

I am a big fan of the clean, uncluttered layout of the site on landing as well as the aids given to you when testing mobile products, especially the keyboard posting tools which negate tapping out my individual data entries. The extensive range of products available to simulate is also something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests (something no FT tester should sneer at).

Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up, as I still sometimes experience lag, which no one loves.

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