We performed a comparison between Bitbar and CrossBrowserTesting 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."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"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 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."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"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."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"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 "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, LambdaTest and Perfecto, whereas CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify. See our Bitbar vs. CrossBrowserTesting report.
See our list of best Functional 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.