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."
"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 ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"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."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"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."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"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."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"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."
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.