We performed a comparison between Eggplant Test and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It provides very strong cross-platform support."
"It is easy to set up."
"DAI's newest release allows us to test via scripts rather than models, because we have done 95 percent of our development in functional, not through modeling. I am really happy that then we can use the controller to run scripts rather than having to translate things to models. There are lots of options."
"Its scalability is good. It is useful for desktop applications, and it also uses OCR and does image recognition."
"The solution is based on a Windows model, where adding users is just a few clicks. It is easy to manage users and add them."
"GUI testing is the strength of the tool. The tool works as expected, and the support response from eggPlant, as a company, has been quick and substantial."
"We are able to now automate tests, which so far have been manual."
"The most valuable features would be the image recognition and the OCR."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"We found that Worksoft is easier to use because our business experts can do the tests. We didn't have to have IT experts."
"It does allow for good reusability. When it's designed properly and utilized properly, we can put things in a way that allows for reusability, meaning a lot of reuse of VA01, if they're very similar flows, to keep it simple."
"The ability to work with the data, with recordsets, and plug those into the scripts is very easy and very powerful. We use it extensively."
"The solution has cut our clients' test maintenance time for changes, like patches or system upgrades. They used to take a lot of time until the production validation completed. Now, it is just seconds until it is ready, so they can do executions within couple of minutes."
"People focus on what they actually want to test and define it in a more detailed way. It shines a light on what they are testing, along with the speed and adaptability."
"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."
"If we write a new test that's 80 percent the same as an existing test, it is pretty straightforward to reuse the steps from existing tests for our new tests and build upon them."
"Eggplant Test should emphasize on improving its offering in non-Windows environments."
"In terms of additional features, it would be helpful to have one package for all testing. You have the manager, the AI, then you have functional, and about 10 different packages for installing."
"The language is too specific; it is just for Eggplant."
"Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence could improve by lowering the price."
"They need to update the Linux. I think it's kind of an outdated Java Swing application."
"The solution would crash from time to time."
"Its performance and stability could be better."
"I would like to see standardized actions already built into Eggplant. For example, "wait eight seconds". That way, I wouldn't need to create it as an action. Right now, I have to program that wait and describe it as an action so that everybody knows it is an action that waits eight seconds... That way, somebody who is not familiar with programming processes like "if-else", or "for", or "while", would be able, from the first moment, and without programming, to put some easy-to-use, standardized, actions in place."
"One feature that we have been asking for has been to treat tests as code and store the source code for tests in a configuration management tool. Right now, for version control of testing, it's all internally within the tool. If we have a test of a business process and want to revive that test, our methodology now is purely manual work. We go into the tool, create a copy of the existing test, and call the next one: v2. Now, we have two of them and the only way you can tell them apart is by its naming convention."
"Web UI testing was difficult in the beginning, as we had a homegrown product, and we had to do the proper object naming."
"The primary area for improvement is the support service."
"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."
"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."
"Worksoft Certify needs a bit of improvement for its web-based processes. It can be difficult because you need to recall the maps, then you still have to add-on for your browser. When you are using the browser-based testing, you cannot even move your mouse or do anything on your system when you are using the web-based testing. Therefore, it needs a bit of improvement on that side. While it does work, it needs improvement. From the SAP side, there is nothing better than Worksoft Certify. However, from the web-based, we are moving towards Fiori. SAP will soon be totally web-based. For Fiori, they need to be great with SAP testing. Thus, Worksoft has to improve the web-based testing part for Certify."
"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."
"We're really hopeful for the mobile testing in Worksoft Certify going forward."
Eggplant Test is ranked 12th in Test Automation Tools with 16 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 5th in Test Automation Tools with 64 reviews. Eggplant Test is rated 7.8, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Eggplant Test writes "Empowers effective test automation with comprehensive platform coverage and scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Worksoft Certify writes "Enables us to automate end-to-end testing of our integration between S/4HANA and Salesforce.com". Eggplant Test is most compared with Selenium HQ, Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and ReadyAPI, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Mendix. See our Eggplant Test vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.