We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and IBM Rational Functional Tester based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."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 has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"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."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"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."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while IBM Rational Functional Tester 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 Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, whereas IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, Selenium HQ, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and Worksoft Certify.
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.
