We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"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."
"Provides all the in-built functionalities and is a wonderful tool."
"What I found most valuable in Worksoft Certify is its identification feature. I also found its automation feature valuable."
"The Worksoft Capture feature is most valuable. For example, if you are creating a sales order in SAP, you do not need to go to each field and do everything. You do not need to write code for each and every line. You can just turn on the Worksoft Capture feature and manually perform your actions. It will capture all manual actions, and it will give you the steps. It will write the steps for you."
"Automation using Worksoft Certify has saved our testing times by 40% to 50%."
"The tool is easy to use. It is a drag and drop Microsoft type of solution."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts."
"We are mainly using it for the SAP application, and for the SAP application, if you don't have any experience with automation tools, after a few training sessions, you can easily automate the scripts. That's because no specific programming language is used. All resources that I have are specifically SAP resources. They are not from the automation background, but after gaining the knowledge, they are able to develop a script, or when there is any issue while doing regression testing, they are at least able to understand the issue, such as whether the issue is in the code or data."
"The decoupling of the test scripts from the data and the application is a nice feature. When you are creating test scripts, for example, for a web application, you have to learn about Worksoft and how the controls of a screen can be interpreted by Worksoft. For that purpose, you create so-called maps. These maps are loosely coupled to your scripts, which means if the application is changed, the control will be changed from an identifier. You don't need to rework the entire script. You only need to do these adjustments in the map, and then you can automatically reuse the scripts. So, it is really a smart move to have the decoupling of scripts, maps, and 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."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved."
"Certify is integrated with Solution Manager, but this integration could be easier."
"We would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products."
"Worksoft Certify needs improvement on customization of reporting and how you report final outcomes."
"The overall speed and performance of this solution could be improved. In a future release, it would be useful to be able to do API testing."
"We can use it for the web application, but we are facing stability-related challenges. The properties are getting changed. For example, when I am performing any operation on the text box but the development team has done some changes, our Worksoft scripts are getting changed. This is the main challenge that we are facing while developing tests for the web application in Worksoft Certify, where any changes in the backend are indirectly impacting our scripts. For the web application, there is a scarcity of resources. Unlike an SAP application that doesn't require much experience, for the web application, you require experienced people."
"What could be improved in Worksoft Certify is its integration with other tools, for example, test management tools such as Jira, ALM, or any other test management tools. That integration is missing."
"There are some other more complete tools than Worksoft Certify, such as Tricentis Tosca. It has a quicker way of taking in a customer's feedback with more efficiency. I do not see Worksoft Certify having a lot of progress over the years that we have used the tool in this area."
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 2 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 11 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 8.6, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Live testing gives us the ability to identify potential issues on different browsers and devices proving to be a very useful tool". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Worksoft Certify writes "Saves time by decoupling test scripts from the data and the application, and allows us to implement logic into the scripts without coding". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Tricentis Tosca, Bitbar, Sauce Labs and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Micro Focus UFT One, SmartBear TestComplete and Panaya Test Dynamix. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
