Skeptics Who Recommend Cross Browser Testing

Reviewing Past Posts In This Series

In this series we have covered the results of the Applitools Ultrafast Cross Browser Hackathon.

  • My first post covered the overall results. I wrote specifically about the ease of creating cross browser tests with Applitools and introduced the topics to follow.
  • My second post covered how the speed of Applitools Ultrafast Grid makes cross browser testing a reality within the application build process.
  • In the third, I explained how Applitools Visual AI tests provide much greater code stability compared with legacy cross browser tests, making the code easier to develop and maintain over time.


For this survey, Applitools used an approach called Net Promoter Score (NPS). Net Promoter Score uses a survey question with the highest correlation to satisfaction:

  • 80 rates as ‘world class’
  • 50 rates as ‘excellent’
  • 20 rates as ‘favorable’
  • Around 0 rates as ‘neutral’
  • -10 and lower rates as ‘negative’

Asking Hackathon Participants

Applitools surveyed the the 2,224 Hackathon participants about their willingness to recommend the use of Applitools Ultrafast Grid to their peers. The survey also asked their willingness to recommend the use of legacy cross browser testing. Of the participants, 203 engineers were able to run both the legacy and the Ultrafast cross browser tests.

Few Fans Of Traditional Cross Browser Testing

For legacy cross browser testing, using a traditional test application and validation process, 68% of participants got classified as detractors. 17% got classified as passives. Only 15% promoted the legacy approach. This gave a NPS of -54 (rounded down). Participants were, in general, not fans of legacy cross browser testing.

Willing to Recommend Applitools Ultrafast Grid for Cross Browser Testing

Also, the survey asked participants their willingness to recommend Applitools Ultrafast Grid for Cross Browser testing. Here, 75% gave a 10 or 9 and got classified as promoters. Another 20% responded 7 or 8 and got classified as neutral.

  • Speed of tests — noting they could run their tests in the build process
  • Simplicity of management — no tests needed to be run and tuned across multiple plaforms
  • Simplified code management — fewer locators meant easier to set up and manage
  • More accurate — the underlying Visual AI wasn’t plagued by false positives and caught all the code errors

Implications of Recommending Cross Browser Testing

If you read my earlier posts, you know that two camps existed related to cross browser testing. One camp ran cross browser tests because they had encountered issues in the past and saw cross browser tests as a safe approach. The other camp avoided it altogether and thought cross browser testing unnecessary.

  • test speed appropriate for software build processes
  • ease of deployment
  • lack of infrastructure to manage, and
  • simplified test code management,

What These Recommendations Mean For You

When you have 75% of engineers recommending something, it might be worth trying. Whether you classify yourself as a cross browser skeptic or a grudging participant, it is clear that Applitools Ultrafast Grid offers something that differs from your current conception of cross browser testing.

Next Week

Next week, in my last blog post in this series, I will help you draw your own conclusions about Modern Cross Browser Testing.



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store


Deliver visually perfect web and mobile apps with AI-powered end-to-end visual testing & monitoring. Get started, free: