We performed a comparison between BrowserStack 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."BrowserStack's best feature is browser testing across different platforms, including mobile."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides parallel and cross-browser testing. It enables us to run tests on multiple browsers or devices simultaneously."
"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."
"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 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."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"We had some execution issues."
"I would like to see clearer visibility."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"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."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"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 five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
Earn 20 points
BrowserStack is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". 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". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, Tricentis Tosca and Bitbar, whereas CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify. See our BrowserStack 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.
