We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and SmartBear TestComplete 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."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."
"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."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"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."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"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."
"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 solution has a very nice interface."
"It allows us to test both desktop and web applications."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."
"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"Recording and playback of tests were easier with SmartBear TestComplete...It is a scalable solution."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"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."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"In SmartBear TestComplete the integration with Jenkins could be easier. Additionally, some of the controls could have better customization options. For example, if a grid is used and it contains multiple controls within it, it can be a checkbox, radio button, or any kind of control, the way the Object Spy is operating currently there is a lot of room for improvement."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"To bring it up to a 10, I would be looking for the addition of some key functional API testing."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 72 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6. 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 SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. SmartBear TestComplete 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.
