Ghost Inspector vs. BitBar

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Ghost Inspector
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Ghost Inspector is a browser test automation and recording tool for testing website and web app functionality, from the company of the same name headquartered in Seattle.N/A
BitBar
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
BitBar allows users to test applications across the latest and most popular real browsers and devices. Users can scale testing by increasing test coverage and decreasing test execution time by running automated tests in parallel across browsers and devices. BitBar integrates with the user's current tech stack or CI/CD pipeline. Key Features: * BitBar offers one cloud for all testing platforms whether it be web, native, or hybrid applications. * Test an application across real…N/A
Pricing
Ghost InspectorBitBar
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Ghost InspectorBitBar
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsEnterprise packages are available for larger teams and customers.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Ghost InspectorBitBar
Best Alternatives
Ghost InspectorBitBar
Small Businesses
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
Enterprises
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 7.0 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.6 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Ghost InspectorBitBar
Likelihood to Recommend
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Ghost InspectorBitBar
Likelihood to Recommend
1. It's amazing for all kinds of browser testing. 2. Very easy to use and you can implement it to cover your tests in a short time. 3. You don't need to be a coding guru, many stuff are autogenerated or builtin and can be easily implemented without huge efforts 4. Reporting and UI is easy to understand and navigate through
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Pros
  • UI Integration tests
  • Asynchronas execution of suites and tests
  • Easy way to generate steps of the tests with Chrome plugin
Read full review
  • Test Continuously With CI/CD Integrations.
  • Selenium and Appium test automation.
  • Generate multiple screenshots of the same interface from different devices, operating systems, and browsers at once.
  • Run visual comparisons of the same web page on the same browser or mobile device from a previous test session.
  • Show layout differences.
Read full review
Cons
  • The number of available integrations is small, but I see more integrations are coming on the way
  • Provide builtin alerting system in case of test failures
  • Improve provide more roles not only user and administrator. A viewer role for example
Read full review
  • 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).
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
1. Faster in terms of time when building the integration browser tests 2. No or minimum development skills needed. 3. No server management is needed on our end. 4. Covers a lot of browsers and cases 5. Builtin integrations for different stuff like slack and PD 6. Fast and provides asynchronous executions
Read full review
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
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • We saved a lot of money by using this tool instead of purchasing expensive ones
  • The implementation of integrations test was supposed to take 6 months of development. With GI it took 2 months only
  • Training QA to build integration tests using GI is much less that any other tool that might need development skills
Read full review
  • I would say mostly positive for the service they offer
  • Negative is how much time you will need to do this testing
Read full review
ScreenShots