We performed a comparison between LEAPWORK 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."The most valuable of this solution is the no code option. It offers drag and drop when it comes to development and removes the need for a developer."
"It provides automated testing. Instead of us doing manual testing, we can utilize Leapwork, and it tests most of our critical processes. In the next phase, we also plan to do some process work with it, such as using Leapwork to create reports or provide certain extracts of data."
"The UI is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts."
"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."
"It is a pretty easy tool to use as far as automated testing tools go."
"The most valuable features of Worksoft Certify are the way we can maintain the processes and sub-processes inside. We can immediately identify and replicate multiple objects in the application without having a major issue with it. We are able to do a lot of operations even with the solution being completely scriptless. That is a large advantage compared with other automation tools."
"Certify's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications like SAP Fiori was good when we started and they developed it to be even better. We all know that web applications can change objects in DOM quite fast and it breaks tests. To counter it Certify has made object recognition more flexible and generic, so we don't have any troubles."
"Certify integrates with other tools and it works very well with other machine testing applications."
"The tool is easy to use. It is a drag and drop Microsoft type of solution."
"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."
"It is a very comprehensive tool, and there is a significant learning curve to being able to adopt the tool. Because it does so much, there is only so much that you can learn. You can, however, do some simpler things right away. They do have a kind of boot camp where some of their experts engage with you, and during that time, you can work on the top initiatives that you want to do, and that's a good process. After you start using the tool, there is a lot more that you would want to do."
"This solution could be improved by offering better reporting related to the integration into Azure DevOps."
"The only thing that I don't like about the product is the need to deploy agents on the laptops of people doing the testing. So, you have an agent on a server, then you have an agent on the laptop of the person who is doing the testing, and that seems like a lot of stuff and a kind of anti-cloud. Why do I have to deploy agents on people's machines in order to do something in the cloud? I'm sure they're doing that so they can monitor their licensing and all that stuff, but it is not necessarily a friendly process."
"The initial setup is difficult."
"Capture 2.0 is not as useful when you get into more mature automation."
"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."
"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."
"The updates for SAP Fiori have been great, where previously we saw a lot of issues. A year ago, it used to fail miserably."
"They have a scheduler in Execution Manager, but it is not customizable. Its UI needs a lot of improvement. The lights-out testing is a bit difficult with that particular tool, and it needs a lot of improvement. Of course, there are so many integration options with Worksoft for execution, but when it comes to Execution Manager, which is their own tool, there is a lot of scope for improvement."
"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."
"It would be great if our business testers could develop their own automated test cases. With every release you do, you have to go back and touch your old test cases and bring them up to speed, or develop new test cases. In the beginning, that is a challenge because you have to have someone who is certified in the tool to help you develop these test cases."
"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."
LEAPWORK is ranked 17th in Test Automation Tools with 3 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 5th in Test Automation Tools with 64 reviews. LEAPWORK is rated 7.6, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of LEAPWORK writes "The product has a user-friendly UI, and it provides good support, but it is expensive and difficult to setup". 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". LEAPWORK is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Avo Assure, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and SmartBear TestComplete. See our LEAPWORK 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.
