No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs Worksoft Certify comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 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

Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
10th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (3rd)
Worksoft Certify
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
88
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 1.4%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Worksoft Certify is 3.1%, down from 4.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Worksoft Certify3.1%
Digital.ai Continuous Testing1.4%
Other95.5%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mampi Bhattacharya - PeerSpot reviewer
Developer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Continuous testing has accelerated daily releases and now provides faster, richer debugging insights
Digital.ai Continuous Testing could be better in certain areas, and I can share my experience-based view on what can be frustrating. One issue is device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours. Sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines. Improvements are needed in smarter auto-scaling of device pools and better priority-based scheduling. Additionally, execution speed variability occurs; the same test sometimes runs fast and sometimes slow, depending on device load and network latency, making results less predictable. More stable execution environments and better performance isolation per session would help. Furthermore, debugging can still be indirect; even with logs or videos, I do not fully control the device as I would with local debugging, making it hard to pause and inspect live states or reproduce edge-case issues locally. More interactive debugging and improved local reproduction tools are necessary. Cost versus usage efficiency is another area of concern, as device cloud usage can be expensive and we sometimes have idle or inefficient tests that waste money. Improvements in usage analytics and cost optimization suggestions for smart test selection to run only impacted tests are areas where I believe Digital.ai Continuous Testing could improve.
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

"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a pretty positive impact on the organization, especially in terms of speed and reliability."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a very positive impact in terms of efficiency and quality."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has positively impacted my organization with massive reductions in testing time, enabling us to cut our regression cycle from two to three days down to two to three hours, transition from weekly releases to nearly daily deployments, and reduce production defects by 30 to 50% while significantly improving debugging efficiency and overall team productivity."
"I have seen a clear positive ROI after implementing Digital.ai Continuous Testing, especially in terms of time saving, faster release cycle, and improved efficiency."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing, and they also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"It is a fantastic tool."
"What I like about Worksoft Certify is that end-to-end testing becomes faster."
"With autotesting, we have been able to eliminate duplication of test cases across those four areas. This has helped us knock down our number of test cases. Our test cases are also running more optimally. Therefore, it has very much helped in that sense, so we were able to eliminate a lot of test cases and get out of manual silos by running on autotesting, which is more efficient."
"It is very easy to maintain. With scripts, I can change one line and in one step. Whatever I want, I can do. I don't need to be an expert to use it."
"We are able to automate, not just SAP, but the entire application ecosystem. If you take any company, SAP is the backbone, and if they use SAP ERP, then, there are multiple software applications, where some of them are SAP and some of them are non-SAP applications. Worksoft is one of the tools which can transcend across SAP and non-SAP applications. Non-SAP application include Java or .NET. Worksoft can seamlessly automate these applications."
"It has definitely enabled us to scale up our testing."
"We saved $1.3 million using Worksoft Certify in 2017."
"On our last big SAP implementation project, we inserted an automation resource into the beginning of the project and, between automating regression processes, data staging, and using our automation to help repair cutover and conversion issues, we saved the project about $1,700,000."
 

Cons

"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times."
"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a strong platform, but there are a few areas where it could be improved to make the experience even better."
"The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before."
"Device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours are an issue; sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines."
"I believe that it could be more stable. During times when something is not working, it is difficult to find the solution."
"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"We have issues with database response during execution."
"Based on my colleagues' feedback, there are still some minor issues concerning continuous testing, particularly related to the timeout feature."
"The updates for SAP Fiori have been great, where previously we saw a lot of issues. A year ago, it used to fail miserably."
"For beginners, I think this is the most problematic aspect."
"When automating procedures in web applications with Worksoft Certify, we mostly face object and Windows issues. It would be better if Worksoft Certify fixes this issue."
"Performance on the web UI part, especially with some of the more comprehensive Fiori features, like the complex tables that are being used, could be improved. In those cases we have noticed a lot of execution-time increase with regards to the Certify solution."
"In my experience, Worksoft Certify is not very stable, and many users face crashing issues, particularly during execution, which leads to wasted time and frustration."
"Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"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."
"The typical range that we see is between 50 to 90 percent improvement in speed capabilities. Another aspect comes with the depth that they're able to test. It increases their capabilities overall to test at a broader level."
"It is expensive compared to some of the other automation tools in the market. However, the benefits and ROI has proved that it has been a good investment."
"Worksoft Certify is slightly more expensive compared to other automation tools that are available on the market. However, the majority of the clients who are utilizing this solution, don't care much about the price. The main aspect the clients look for is its stability and reliability on the automation and whether they are able to rely on the automation scripts."
"There is a cost involved to doing it, but once you get over the initial cost, then you'll start reaping the benefits and seeing that testing is getting done more quickly and efficiently. We are still early on with it, but the expectation and what we're seeing is that we will start seeing some savings coming out on the back-end once we have this done."
"We have seen ROI by being able to free up and give time back to the business for other value-added work."
"The tool is not really good at all because you need to purchase some additional tools."
"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 Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,417 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
University
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Energy/Utilities Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise72
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times. One thing I noticed is that the initial setup and configuration can feel complex, especia...
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The main use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing has been automating test execution as part of the CI/CD pipeline, especially for ensuring builds are stable before the release. For example, I us...
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Worksoft Certify?
Regarding the pricing of Worksoft Certify, I do not know the actual pricing, but the company gets it as a per-license, per-user basis. I do not know the inside information, but I got the feeling th...
What needs improvement with Worksoft Certify?
The execution time which is happening with Worksoft Certify is a bit low compared to Playwright and all. That is one thing I have found as a little discomfort. When compared, it is comparatively le...
 

Also Known As

Experitest Seetest, Experitest
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
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 Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. Worksoft Certify and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,417 professionals have used our research since 2012.