BitBar vs. Visual Studio Test Professional

CrossBrowserTesting is a great tool to use when you have a new page or new content that you want to test on an array of devices/browsers. In the diverse online world nowadays, it is nearly impossible to ensure optimization for every case. CBT allows you to get closer to that goal.

Incentivized

It would be well suited if we used it with Azure DevOps as we can effortlessly integrate the test cases and even stories or tasks to stay on track with our work. Those test cases can even be reused across multiple projects. Using any other third-party tools, such as Jira, can be less appropriate, as it's not a Microsoft tool, and its capabilities will be limited.

Incentivized

• Allows me to test on our development server with ease which is behind a firewall.
• Using automation for my tests.
• Screenshots of the problems on each page.
• Ability to jump between screen sizes quickly.

Incentivized

• Availability of the desktop client or the web interface. The web interface being the favorite and providing a better experience.
• It enables you to write unit tests with so much ease.
• Allows the recording and repeating of manual tests
• It can be set up for collaboration.

Incentivized

• Test case support is somewhat limited in customization ability.
• Not a unique problem to them (or their 'fault'), but content behind VPN or intranet cannot be scanned.
• Pricing with tier level and features can sometimes be confusing (ie. what is and what is not included).

Incentivized

• The user community of the Visual Studio Test product is weak. For instant problems with this product, it is necessary to quickly reach the source of the error.
• Licence fees need to be more reasonable. License prices need to be reduced so that they can easily compete with free testing tools.

Incentivized

It is very usable if you are familiar with Visual Studio to begin with. If you are new to the interface, it can be a long ramp up period for Testers not used to the GUI. There is always the web option which seems to be more intuitive for many Testers.

Incentivized

Visual Studio Test Professional is backed up by the full support of the Microsoft Corporation. That means twenty-four/seven customer support by quality, highly-trained professionals who understand every possible issue that you have experienced before. They are nice, efficient, and highly professional. I recommend them.

Incentivized

Selenium: 1. Selenium is Open source tool 2. Needs proper framework development and integration with multiple 3rd party tools 3. Not much secure 4. Needs scripting knowledge for people working on it 5. takes time and effort CrossBrowser Testing: 1. Licensed , so secure 2. Less time , less effort 3. Quick results 4. No scripting language knowledge needed 5. More coverage 6. Without any framework creation also we can test on multiple devices/browsers

Incentivized

The visual Studio Test tool is faster than other tools. Since the development and testing processes are in one tool, it is more profitable in terms of cost. It is more inconvenient to write a test case in DevOps.

• By using CrossBrowserTesting we are saving many hours a week in manual work hours.
• Our automated Selenium tests run in a fraction of the time it takes to manually test our components, so we can spend more time building great user experiences and less time triaging bugs.

• One of the positive ROIs of Visual Studios is the fact that it makes producing our work at a quick rate, things like Intellisense make our work get produced at a much higher rate which is good for our return of investment.
• Testing by the developers has increased by 23%, we now take the time to actually test our product before we send it to our QA people.
• I am not aware of any negative ROI aspects to our company that have been found.

Incentivized