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."Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple 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."
"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."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"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."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"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."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"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."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"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.