We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and SmartBear TestComplete based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"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."
"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."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"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."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"The product has many features."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"Selenium integration."
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"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."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"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 solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"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."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"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."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools while SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 71 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 Sauce Labs, whereas SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish.
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.