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."I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"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."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"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 is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of 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."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"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."
"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."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
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.