We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

CrossBrowserTesting OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

CrossBrowserTesting is the #16 ranked solution in our list of top Functional Testing Tools. It is most often compared to BrowserStack: CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

What is CrossBrowserTesting?

CrossBrowserTesting is a cloud testing platform that gives instant access to 1500+ different real desktop and mobile browsers for testers, developers, and designers.

  • Native debugging tools make manual testing easy to inspect and correct HTML, CSS, and JavaScript errors on any browser.
  • Take automated screenshots across multiple browsers at once, then compare side-by-side against historical test runs.
Buyer's Guide

Download the Functional Testing Tools Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2021

CrossBrowserTesting Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia

CrossBrowserTesting Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about CrossBrowserTesting pricing:
  • "SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."

CrossBrowserTesting Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
reviewer1444233
Quality Assurance Specialist at SelectQuote
Real User
Top 5
Live testing gives us the ability to identify potential issues on different browsers and devices proving to be a very useful tool.

Pros and Cons

  • "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."
  • "Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use case we use this solution for would be to test our Marketing websites.

With our websites, the users' needs are always expanding and growing. There are many times we are adding and taking away content, as well as modifying existing content and page layouts. Different campaigns are created with tracking measures and parameters that are validated for company use and reporting.

It is important in these cases that we are able to run tests on different devices and browsers with clear cookies and session storage to be able to see any differences and provide clear accurate results. 

How has it helped my organization?

CrossBrowserTesting is an essential tool in our organization for key projects. Our marketing team gains the most from utilizing this tool to be able to test ongoing web enhancements and different tracking measures.

It crucial for our marketing team to be able to check our web pages against various devices and browsers with cleared caching to be able to get a viable user-end experience and accurate reporting. With the live testing tool and screenshots, we are able to compare the different results observed with the devices and browsers and implement fixes.

What is most valuable?

Our team uses the live testing feature almost daily to check for differences within a web page from browser to browser. The live testing feature is also useful when submitting data from our web pages using different parameters that affect cookies and session storage.

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 screenshots tool is another feature that we are able to utilize to get a quick grasp of high-level layout differences that may present during testing. 

What needs improvement?

Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing. This is one of the few concerns our team has had while trying to accomplish our testing. Going forward, I'm sure improvements can be made to help alleviate some of those concerns.

Expansion on automation and quicker testing is something that would greatly benefit our business needs. Smartbear has already implemented some automation on the platform that can be used and improved to fulfill our needs as well as many other users. 

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using CrossBrowserTesting for nine months. 

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?


What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together. If you find yourself utilizing other project management programs in addition to testing programs such as this, it is helpful to have programs that work together cohesively. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

This solution seemed to offer quite a variety of testing means such as live testing, screenshot captures, and some automation possibilities. We chose to go with this option over others for that reason.

What other advice do I have?

Overall, this solution has proved useful to our organization, and with future improvements and the hopeful addition of devices, it will continue to be a tool we use daily.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Michael Hutchison
Web Specialist at Mayo Clinic
User
Top 20
Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems

Pros and Cons

  • "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."
  • "I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a variety of browsers and devices. CBT works with our testing environment and development site.  Our greatest concern is universal appearance and functionality, thus we test a great many browsers.

How has it helped my organization?

Our site's conversion from a static to an adaptive flexible layout was a major goal for our web site, and CrossBrowserTesting was an invaluable tool for trying out that new code. Cross-device testing was essential.

We could not have been certain that we would have achieved our goal without it.

What is most valuable?

Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems. I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team. Though it is probably a minor part of what CBT does, I find it the most useful.

What needs improvement?

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. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy.  This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.

For how long have I used the solution?

Over six years.

How are customer service and technical support?

CBT's customer service is amazing. They respond to comments and queries quickly and with great interest in resolving any problems.

How was the initial setup?

Usage of this tool is very simple and straightforward.

What was our ROI?

At first we had purchased a huge license for use by many members of the team, but this was costly and we found we didn't use it nearly enough to warrant that.  We scaled it back to one login for one tester.  I'd advise anyone else to start small and only grow the size of the license if needed.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We originally had a huge license where every member of our team had a sign-in for the tool, but found that was overkill.  We don't use anywhere near the number of minutes we were paying for, so we scaled it back to one ID for the person who does the testing.  I'd say start small and expand if you find you need it; it will certainly vary depending on your needs.

One problem we've had is the annual license.  We have to have our team's assistant do the license on the company card, and then the company emails me addressing me by her name.  Sometimes it's difficult to straighten it out.  Since CBT deals with companies as its primary user base, I should think it would be easier to handle the annual renewal.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear, BrowserStack, Sauce Labs and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: September 2021.
542,267 professionals have used our research since 2012.
reviewer1260174
Manager, Web Development at a retailer with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 10
Extensive pre-deployment testing ensures consistency and finds problems before our customers do

Pros and Cons

  • "CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
  • "This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."

What is our primary use case?

We needed a consistent way to test our site against multiple browsers and devices. By having access to different devices sporting different versions of each OS, we can ensure our customers are going to be getting a satisfactory experience. Without this, we are guessing as to how or what experience our users are getting.

It's also helpful in researching issues that our customers report when we know what devices/OS/browser they're using. Using a browser emulator doesn't cut it and having a live device browser to interact with the site is invaluable.

How has it helped my organization?

We've seen an improvement in functionality across browsers. We're able to find where alignment is off or functionality is failing due to some "feature" with a specific browser. Being able to find issues before the customer does is key.

The snapshots of what the site looks like at any given time give us insight into where our UX is off. Similarly, if we are having issues with the functionality then we can catch them even if our QA team missed them.

Having it all in one place makes finding and fixes issues so much quicker.

What is most valuable?

Being able to test across actual devices is key. Without seeing how your site really works against an older device and/or browser, you can't truly know if your customers will have a good, poor, or bad experience.

Device emulators within a browser can only do so much and at the end of the day, they really are rendering with their engine, not the actual engine the customer is using.

CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing. Better you find out the issues before your customer does.

What needs improvement?

This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using CrossBrowserTesting for about a year.

What other advice do I have?

Being able to test against our local development machine is key too. We don't pollute our QA server until we're ready for actual QA and we can find out what's going on much quicker than a check-in/deploy/test/redo cycle that would normally be needed if it weren't for the ability to test locally. This works and it works well and is a great addition to our testing toolbox.

Overall, the product does what we need and does it well.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.