We performed a comparison between Ranorex Studio 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."The solution is fast and includes built-in libraries that record and playback."
"The most valuable feature of Ranorex Studio is its user-friendly interface."
"I like the recording function and Ranorex Spy."
"The solution is stable."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"Data security was prime for us. Being able to download and run tests on our local machines was a big plus. The flexibility Ranorex offers in terms of customization is outstanding."
"The solution is intuitive and pretty self-sustaining. You don't need a lot of help with it in terms of setup or assistance."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"It's script-free, which is really important for our end users because we are usually dealing with colleagues who are not developers and who do not always have the technical background of developing and scripting. It's very useful that there is a nice UI and the tool is script-free."
"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."
"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."
"Certify integrates with other tools and it works very well with other machine testing applications."
"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."
"We were able to use Worksoft to automate all of the actions that we would have to take after an SAP refresh. This way we do the refresh, then that night or right afterwards, we run the Worksoft script and it resets all of our testing users. This sets them up with the right access, the right approvals, and just sets up everything on the back-end so we can do our scripts the next night."
"The easy of use and ease of integration of Worksoft Certify are very good."
"If there are many queries on the web page, Ranorex will not render the page correctly. I had about 1,000 queries on the page, and the solution was not able to handle it."
"Other OS Support, Ranorex Spy performance improvement (Especially for Silverlight controls)."
"Part of the challenge is that Ranorex's support is over in Europe, so we can't get responses on the same day. If we had support in the United States that was a bit more timely, that would be helpful."
"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."
"The solution does not support dual or regression testing."
"There were a lot of issues we faced. One notable improvement would be better API integration within the tool itself, as we still rely on external tools like Postman."
"When Ranorex is upgraded, the compatibility with other projects, in version control, in-house or on-premise, fails on occasion. However, overall, the stability is good."
"Binding to other sources is very good but the object recognition in .NET desktop applications often doesn't work."
"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."
"There was a change to Capture 2.0. In the end, there have been some challenges with the newer version. Therefore, the company testers, the local ones, do not want to use Capture 2.0."
"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."
"Reportings are not user-friendly."
"As part of our weekly regression, we wanted to use Execution Manager. However, from 2017 until March 2021, Execution Manager was not working as expected in our enrollment. It could have been better. If Execution Manager had worked well, then we could have doubled our productivity. Unfortunately, it had problems."
"We're really hopeful for the mobile testing in Worksoft Certify going forward."
"One feature that could be added to Capture 2.0 is generating a PDF file from your capture, so you can see your screenshots and steps."
"Capture 2.0 is not as useful when you get into more mature automation."
Ranorex Studio is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Good data security, allowing local installations to prevent data from going to the internet". 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". Ranorex Studio is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT One, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Panaya Test Dynamix. See our Ranorex Studio vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation 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.
