We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Ranorex Studio based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The solution is stable."
"Data security was prime for us. Being able to download and run tests on our local machines was a big plus. The flexibility Ranorex offers in terms of customization is outstanding."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"I'm from a UFT background, so Ranorex Studio has a similar feel in terms of how it handles objects. It just felt familiar even though I'd never seen it before. However, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of UFT, but it's a pretty good start, and it's cost-effective."
"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."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"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."
"Part of the challenge is that Ranorex's support is over in Europe, so we can't get responses on the same day. If we had support in the United States that was a bit more timely, that would be helpful."
"When we have updated the solution in the past there have been issues with the libraries. They need to make it clear that the libraries need to be upgraded too."
"We are mainly working for manufacturing OEMs but the integration is not available. It would be a benefit if they built one integration tool for all the Teamcenter home servers and software as the main PLM data source. It is a simple process at this time, the integration could be made easier."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"If there are many queries on the web page, Ranorex will not render the page correctly. I had about 1,000 queries on the page, and the solution was not able to handle it."
"Ranorex is used in Windows while other solutions, for example, Katalon Studio, are cross-platform. (But in my opinion, overall, Ranorex is better)."
"The solution's technical support team could be responsive."
"There were a lot of issues we faced. One notable improvement would be better API integration within the tool itself, as we still rely on external tools like Postman."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0. 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 Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Sauce Labs, whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One.
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.
