We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and IBM DevOps Test UI based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"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."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"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."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"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."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"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."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"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."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools while IBM DevOps Test UI is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while IBM DevOps Test UI is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM DevOps Test UI writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify, whereas IBM DevOps Test UI is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, HCL OneTest and Worksoft Certify. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. IBM DevOps Test UI report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression 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.