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.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| CrossBrowserTesting | 1.4% |
| Tricentis Tosca | 9.9% |
| OpenText Functional Testing | 7.1% |
| Other | 81.6% |
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Functional Testing Tools | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | CrossBrowserTesting vs Tricentis Tosca | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | CrossBrowserTesting vs Worksoft Certify | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | CrossBrowserTesting vs OpenText Functional Testing | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tricentis Tosca | 4.1 | 9.9% | 96% | 113 interviewsAdd to research |
| OpenText Functional Testing | 4.0 | 7.1% | 87% | 98 interviewsAdd to research |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 7 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 3 |
| Large Enterprise | 5 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 28 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 17 |
| Large Enterprise | 33 |
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?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.
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I use CrossBrowserTesting for web app testing. It's stable, scalable, and has good support and easy setup. Onboarding and cloud conductivity could improve. I rate it 8/10. |
| Quality Assurance Specialist at SelectQuote | 4.5 | I find CrossBrowserTesting essential for validating our marketing websites across devices and browsers, utilizing live testing and screenshots for accurate reporting and user experience. While useful, I encounter lag during virtual real device testing, which could be improved. |
| Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic | 5.0 | I use CBT for essential cross-browser testing of new pages and adaptive layouts. Static screenshots are my most valuable feature, despite a minor default issue. Customer service is amazing, but I recommend starting with a small license. |
| Manager, Web Development at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees | 5.0 | CrossBrowserTesting helps me ensure my site works across real devices and browsers, finding issues before customers do. It's great for local development testing, improving functionality and user experience. I wish testing were faster and more devices were supported. |
| Works at a computer software company with 11-50 employees | 4.0 | We found CrossBrowserTesting very useful for testing across devices and browsers, saving costs on in-house hardware. Its real device sessions and screenshot tests are valuable, though automated testing could be improved. It's better than previous solutions. |
| Software Quality Assurance Engineer | 5.0 | We use this solution for feature validation and regression testing across multiple platforms, finding issues early. Record and Replay is invaluable, but we wish for simultaneous live testing to boost efficiency and more help with automation framework building. |
| Works | 3.5 | I find this solution valuable for testing our application on real devices, saving costs and time. However, I frequently experience freezing and unresponsiveness when using virtual machines and desire a wider selection of available real devices. |
| Works at a computer software company with 51-200 employees | 4.5 | CrossBrowserTesting is great for responsive testing on various browsers, with useful video/screenshot tools. I appreciate the local connection, and customer support promptly resolved the one issue I faced. |
| Works at a educational organization with 201-500 employees | 4.0 | I use CBT for live UI testing on diverse devices and IE. Parallel users are great, but I experience slow mobile connections, problematic screenshots, and need better web inspector and local file access. |
| President at Market Acumen, Inc. | 5.0 | I find this tool essential for continuous cross-browser JavaScript testing and debugging, with easy setup and responsive support. However, I've noted a slow UI and occasional instance failures, especially in older browser versions. |
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.
We have less than 100 people using the solution in my organization.
The technical support is good. I was satisfied with the speed and their knowledge.
We previously used Selenium.
The installation and setup were easy.
I rate CrossBrowserTesting an eight out of ten.
The primary use case we use this solution for would be to test our Marketing websites.
With our websites, the users' needs are always expanding and growing. There are many times we are adding and taking away content, as well as modifying existing content and page layouts. Different campaigns are created with tracking measures and parameters that are validated for company use and reporting.
It is important in these cases that we are able to run tests on different devices and browsers with clear cookies and session storage to be able to see any differences and provide clear accurate results.
CrossBrowserTesting is an essential tool in our organization for key projects. Our marketing team gains the most from utilizing this tool to be able to test ongoing web enhancements and different tracking measures.
It crucial for our marketing team to be able to check our web pages against various devices and browsers with cleared caching to be able to get a viable user-end experience and accurate reporting. With the live testing tool and screenshots, we are able to compare the different results observed with the devices and browsers and implement fixes.
Our team uses the live testing feature almost daily to check for differences within a web page from browser to browser. The live testing feature is also useful when submitting data from our web pages using different parameters that affect cookies and session storage.
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 screenshots tool is another feature that we are able to utilize to get a quick grasp of high-level layout differences that may present during testing.
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. This is one of the few concerns our team has had while trying to accomplish our testing. Going forward, I'm sure improvements can be made to help alleviate some of those concerns.
Expansion on automation and quicker testing is something that would greatly benefit our business needs. Smartbear has already implemented some automation on the platform that can be used and improved to fulfill our needs as well as many other users.
We have been using CrossBrowserTesting for nine months.
SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together. If you find yourself utilizing other project management programs in addition to testing programs such as this, it is helpful to have programs that work together cohesively.
This solution seemed to offer quite a variety of testing means such as live testing, screenshot captures, and some automation possibilities. We chose to go with this option over others for that reason.
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.
When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a variety of browsers and devices. CBT works with our testing environment and development site. Our greatest concern is universal appearance and functionality, thus we test a great many browsers.
Our site's conversion from a static to an adaptive flexible layout was a major goal for our web site, and CrossBrowserTesting was an invaluable tool for trying out that new code. Cross-device testing was essential.
We could not have been certain that we would have achieved our goal without it.
Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems. I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team. Though it is probably a minor part of what CBT does, I find it the most useful.
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. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.
Over six years.
CBT's customer service is amazing. They respond to comments and queries quickly and with great interest in resolving any problems.
Usage of this tool is very simple and straightforward.
At first we had purchased a huge license for use by many members of the team, but this was costly and we found we didn't use it nearly enough to warrant that. We scaled it back to one login for one tester. I'd advise anyone else to start small and only grow the size of the license if needed.
We originally had a huge license where every member of our team had a sign-in for the tool, but found that was overkill. We don't use anywhere near the number of minutes we were paying for, so we scaled it back to one ID for the person who does the testing. I'd say start small and expand if you find you need it; it will certainly vary depending on your needs.
One problem we've had is the annual license. We have to have our team's assistant do the license on the company card, and then the company emails me addressing me by her name. Sometimes it's difficult to straighten it out. Since CBT deals with companies as its primary user base, I should think it would be easier to handle the annual renewal.
We needed a consistent way to test our site against multiple browsers and devices. By having access to different devices sporting different versions of each OS, we can ensure our customers are going to be getting a satisfactory experience. Without this, we are guessing as to how or what experience our users are getting.
It's also helpful in researching issues that our customers report when we know what devices/OS/browser they're using. Using a browser emulator doesn't cut it and having a live device browser to interact with the site is invaluable.
We've seen an improvement in functionality across browsers. We're able to find where alignment is off or functionality is failing due to some "feature" with a specific browser. Being able to find issues before the customer does is key.
The snapshots of what the site looks like at any given time give us insight into where our UX is off. Similarly, if we are having issues with the functionality then we can catch them even if our QA team missed them.
Having it all in one place makes finding and fixes issues so much quicker.
Being able to test across actual devices is key. Without seeing how your site really works against an older device and/or browser, you can't truly know if your customers will have a good, poor, or bad experience.
Device emulators within a browser can only do so much and at the end of the day, they really are rendering with their engine, not the actual engine the customer is using.
CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing. Better you find out the issues before your customer does.
This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices.
Being able to test against our local development machine is key too. We don't pollute our QA server until we're ready for actual QA and we can find out what's going on much quicker than a check-in/deploy/test/redo cycle that would normally be needed if it weren't for the ability to test locally. This works and it works well and is a great addition to our testing toolbox.
Overall, the product does what we need and does it well.
We develop web and mobile applications and need to test our applications across different browsers and different devices across all operating systems.
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.
We have saved the cost to buy in house devices.
Real device sessions instead of simulators
Screenshot test across the web and mobile devices at once which returns images
Shareable reports
Selection of the required device, Platform, and browsers.
Automated testing could be improved.
Test management feature where tests could be scripted.
Data-driven testing could be added.
Very few issues
Excellent Product
We used Telerik Test studio for CrossBrowserTesting but found CrossBrowserTesting miles better instead.
It has already paid cost back
Buying a license is cheaper than procurement of in house devices and there is no maintenance cost either.
Yes, we compared with Test Studio
Agile Support
Test script feature
Graphical Test Reports
Dashboard Widgets
Our primary use cases for this solution are:
This solution helps in the functional verification and regression testing phases of our product, as our solution is used on multiple OS/mobile/browser combinations.
Using CrossBrowserTesting, we run the test suites on multiple OS/mobile combinations with different browsers. Thereby, the platform-specific issues are discovered at an early stage.
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.
Live testing with the previous history of test cases is a useful feature.
Screenshot testing is a useful feature for applying the same test case on multiple browsers.
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.
It would be helpful to have more help notes or videos to show how to build an automation framework.
We did not use another solution prior to this.
It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers.
We did not evaluate other solutions.
Our primary use case is testing our application on various tablet/mobile devices. It is nice to have all of the devices you need in one place.
This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices. It saves time because we are not constantly upgrading to the latest OS on each device.
The most valuable feature is that it gives us "real" OS devices that are available to test. On top of that, we don't have to ensure that all of the devices are up to date.
I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on. Sometimes it will freeze or not respond. I cannot log in to our application because the VM does not always respond to keyboard functions.
I would also like to see more real devices in this list of those to choose from. I have had some of our customers come to us with bugs that are specific to a particular mobile device and I could not recreate the issue since we do not have the particular device and it is not on crossbrowser Galaxy S9 .Id like to see Galaxy Tab S4/ E lite added.
My impressions of the stability are neutral.
I am the only tester to use the app. I am not sure how well it runs with multiple users at one time. I've noticed freezing and experience slow response time fairly often.
Good customer service. No complaints here.
We did not use a solution prior to this one.
This solution has a quick and easy setup.
Our in-house team handled the implementation.
The cost of this solution depends on size and demand.
We did not really evaluate other options before selecting this one.
I used CrossBrowserTesting for testing on different browsers on desktop and phone environments with different browser versions for our sites.
CrossBrowserTesting helps a lot with the responsive testing in different mobiles and browsers and has good tools for our testing like taking videos and screenshots.
The local connection is pretty awesome at the moment of testing the developments created at home, and the tool getting the proof of your testing is awesome (videos and screenshots).
I had some problems with the local connection, but there is someone that can help us always on customer support chat. They solved my problem.
The customer service was pretty great. Andrew made sure to get all the information needed to send my issue to the technical support.
No. CrossBrowserTesting is my first tool and a pretty good one to use anytime.
Use of CBT to test the UI in different mobile devices since the experience is different with a real device vs. resizing window browser. Also, it's very useful to test the UI in Internet Explorer.
It helps to speed up the process to test the product in different devices and browsers, making it easy to troubleshoot some issues.
I am frequently using live testing to verify the UI in different devices and IE browser. Also, I've started using a screenshot, but it is not very useful for me, since the page does not load properly without loading another CSS file.
I had used BrowserStack; we switched to CBT because it is easy to have parallel users.
Primary use case is to run an online analytics company which requires JavaScript compatibility across all browsers. We use this tool to test and deploy release updates whenever changes are made. Also, they have a Selenium portal which is useful for doing browser testing for our administrative interface and automated user testing. Finally, they have the ability to launch live browser environments. This is invaluable in diagnosing customer issues and replicating problems within specific browsers.
We would not be able to provide our services without their tools. Their tools, or ones like it, are absolutely essential for us to provide high quality and continuous integration for our services.
Web user interface is "heavy" and slow to load. Some browser configurations do not work at all times. Account limits do not allow you to queue jobs - you must wait to submit until jobs complete. Could use improvements in ability to tag on create screen.
Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers. However, if you request these instances again, they succeed. I am guessing it is difficult to maintain legacy systems (particularly ones older than five to eight years).
No issues.
The few times that I have had to work with their customer support, they have been responsive and addressed issues immediately. Overall, it has only been a few times over the past few years, and each time I have had my issue addressed and felt like they were attentive and responsive.
We previous use BrowserCam, and they went out of business.
It is very easy to set up. Their Selenium environment has good documentation and their sample code works easily. Otherwise, the web app portion of the product is easy to use and work with.
We implemented in-house.
If our service goes down or has a JavaScript error on particular browsers, our customers would notice and look for alternatives. I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues.
We did evaluate others, but I do not recall the competition. CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price.
