Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CrossBrowserTesting vs Worksoft Certify comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
26th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Worksoft Certify
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
77
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (7th), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Worksoft Certify is 3.8%, down from 5.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Worksoft Certify3.8%
CrossBrowserTesting1.5%
Other94.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
Senior DevOps Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable
We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…
Muddisetty Arun Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
WorkSoft Certified Automation Engineer at Qualesce
Automation has delivered strong ROI with AI-driven test prioritization and parallel reporting
The best feature of Worksoft Certify is the automatic report generation. Unlike traditional tools like Selenium or Java-based frameworks where reporting often requires custom coding, Certify handles this natively. We are currently utilizing the 14.5 version, which has modernized these capabilities, though we frequently manage backward compatibility for clients still running on the 12.x version series.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"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."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"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."
"It's very different versus other tools in the past, which were not very modern. It easy for people to automate."
"I would recommend Worksoft Certify to other users without any hesitation, including for its ease of learning, ease of automation, low maintenance, time savings, and the availability of reporting templates."
"Mostly in the area of project testing, the most immediate benefit is when you historically have manual testers do a certain job, and a full regression testing was previously done 100 percent manually. We have had cases where the release testing for an entire region would take around 12 weeks. With Worksoft, we are now down to two to three weeks. So, that is one use case where we have had success."
"It's pretty seamless with SAP and Salesforce because they've built in the field definitions and all the things that you need. You literally turn it on and execute your script and it records it. It's very simple. Then you can go back and put in some of the other functions. For example, instead of hard-coding field selections, you put in a data table so you can run it multiple times or with multiple data. It was actually written to work very well with SAP."
"Our business users are doing regression testing as their day job. This is an add-on to their daily work. With everything so pressured in the industry, automation takes the pressure of these users."
"The turn around time for getting the automation tester familiarized with the tool is very quick, as it doesn't have any coding. It is fairly simple to understand."
"We prefer Worksoft over other platforms because it's a low-code solution"
"It provides a lot of time savings. We are always ready to execute a task whenever the business asks us. We saved approximately 7000 hours in 2018."
 

Cons

"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"The technical support comes on, and says, "Oh, so-and-so link is here, go through that link, and make the modifications." I'm not comfortable in making those changes. I want to schedule a call, share my screen, and have them fix it for me."
"The updates for SAP Fiori have been great, where previously we saw a lot of issues. A year ago, it used to fail miserably."
"Small changes in the HTML page design can impact the automation process, unlike SAP, where the script remains stable unless there is a functional change."
"For Execution Manager, I would like it to be more robust interface and be able to view the remote machines full screen instead of a little window."
"If any AI-powered features are included, that would be great. We've already seen the beginning of self-healing capabilities, but additional integrations with AI would be beneficial."
"Reportings are not user-friendly."
"When it comes to mobile testing, we have a small bottleneck there. You have to buy third-party separate licenses if you want to test on a mobile. Business wise we see room for improvement there, although it's that really critical for us."
"I would like the GUI to be more user-friendly and intuitive. We want to be able to move assets from project to another project without having to be in the same project or the same folder structure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"I can only judge based on the situation that we had around six years ago when we did the tool evaluation. Worksoft was not the cheapest, but it provided the value. For 25 concurrent licenses, we paid more than €400,000, so it was not cheap. In the end, if you see how much time you are saving and compare it with others, its price is okay. We had also compared its cost with the licensing costs for HP and Tricentis, and they were at another level. Now, as we have already booked the licenses, we only have to pay an annual maintenance fee, which is 70%, and that is okay."
"By using automation, it reduced about 75 percent of the time when compared to any other tool."
"The initial upfront cost in terms of licenses, plus all the money that we spent developing tests, has proven it's worth. Now, we can do a regression test suite in ten days as opposed to sixteen weeks."
"If we do one manual process, it could take approximately two hours. The same process using Worksoft probably takes ten minutes."
"We have seen that the initial Worksoft implementation has helped our customers reduce their testing cycle time by 50 percent. With further continuous improvement, we have seen cycle time reduced up to 75 percent. That is the level of productivity achieved using Worksoft Certify."
"Our ROI is primarily a reduction in testing time. The testing, when we were doing it manually, was 30 to 40 percent of the project's cost."
"This solution has enabled our clients to automate and save time (approximately 40 to 50 percent)."
"Purchasing and licensing are okay. Go for the perpetual licenses. In that way, you own a license, then you can purchase maintenance and support on top of that, so you don't have to pay every year for it. Even if you don't want it a contract with Worksoft Certify in the future, you will have your own license of it. Then, if your usage is not that much, you can have one or two perpetual licenses. However, if you want to run your processes, you will need more licenses, e.g., using the run-only licenses. They are really cheap compared to the full licensing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Educational Organization
9%
Performing Arts
9%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Retailer
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise65
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What do you like most about Worksoft Certify?
A specific feature that I found to be the most valuable in the solution for our company's work processes stems from the fact that it is useful as a low-code automation tool.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Worksoft Certify?
I find the pricing not expensive at all as it depends on how many users will be required.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Kraft, Reliant Energy, Richemont, Applied Materials, Siemens PLM, Mosaic, Dow Corning, ebay, IBM, Accenture, Fortis BC, US Government, Southwest Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Worksoft Certify and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.