Worksoft Certify Room for Improvement
Certify is integrated with Solution Manager, but this integration could be easier.
Overall, in terms of how it is working, I find it pretty clever in all the areas. There are only tiny things. For example, to log into Certify, you have to put in your username and password. In version 12, they changed it, and the password is no longer stored. So, you have to enter it every time you log in. Similarly, there should be a way to store the layout of tables in Certify. You can adjust your tables, but when you close Certify, if I recall correctly, the layout of the table is not stored automatically. So, you have to adjust it every time. I'm, however, not quite certain about it.
These are tiny things that they can improve, but compared to the whole feature list of Certify, they are not so important.View full review »
Configuration Owner at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
When you are using an older version of Worksoft Certify, like version 10, Capture will be running under your status bar. Then, you don't know what transactions you are currently recording. In the old version, you don't have the visual of the capture.
It works well with other tools, but there is some integration required with Solution Manager. If you are using test repository in your solution manager, then there is no direct integration between Solution Manager and Worksoft Certify.
There is an improvement needed in the reporting within Worksoft Certify. We have either a detailed report or a summary report. We don't have report that can be used for training purposes. A different tool from Worksoft has to be utilized for this.
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.
They have a lot of versions coming out every year, like four or five versions. They need to reduce this number. There should be one or two versions every year with add-ons, if necessary. Because if you want to upgrade your Worksoft Certify from an older version to a newer version, you almost need to reset the solution and we don't have that much time. We cannot dedicate four times a year to having the newest version of Worksoft Certify. Though, if I don't need the need changes or improvements, I can skip the most recent upgrade until the next version comes out.View full review »
SAP QA Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
One caveat is that if you start running models in different parts of the end-to-end process — when you really try to hit the sky and make everything automatic, to cover multiple supply chain tiers processes in one e2e test, or similar processes that are really complicated — then tool simplicity turns into disadvantage. On other hand it stops us from unnecessary over engineering the test automation framework.
Architecturally, because Worksoft specifically built a database-oriented application, you essentially store code in the database. Git and text files orientation is more traditional approach with boundless set of tools to control versions, manipulation and analysis. But at the same time, Worksoft supplies us with their own version control inside Certify that has sufficient functionality for now.
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.
None of these are showstoppers for our operations. Worksoft proved to delivery significant improvements in last 3 years and more we wait from 11.5 version. Overall, we are quite well covered with test automation related tools and nothing special is needed.View full review »
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.
From 2014 to 2022, there were fewer improvements in the UI looks and feel. Overall there were fewer improvements in the solution. There were some challenges that we faced with our customers, and Worksoft Certify provides customer-specific call announcements. For example, customer A is trying to work on Worksoft Certify, they will face a specific challenge in utilizing the tool, and Worksoft Certify provides a custom solution to them. With customer B, they are faced with other challenges, and Worksoft Certify provided them with a customized solution. There is a chance that the same issue that was faced with customer A, customer B had also. Instead of Worksoft Certify providing a dedicated solution for everyone, they were providing solutions on a customized level. They can improve on this process.
There were some challenges that we faced with respect to automation. For example, there were some areas where we had to do a drag and drop of some of the objects from one place to another. In some of the areas in SAP where you have to perform a drag and drop, that feature was not available in Worksoft Certify. We had to find some alternate ways of doing those things.
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.
The integration with mobile needs to be improved. Initially, they used to support certain applications, and now, they are supporting all the web applications, but with minimal knowledge, it's very difficult for any tester to automate web applications. That's where they need to improve a lot. They are already working on it. They have given additional features, and with the help of those features, you can easily automate, but they need to keep making it easier for business users who do not want to get into each and every technical aspect of it. They just want to capture the actions. It is working fine with SAP, but they have to concentrate on web applications. They also need to support Safari, as well as macOS, better.
If you keep on running it for a long time without removing unnecessary things, the load on the database increases, which impacts the performance of the tool. Sometimes, it hangs or is slow. We have faced this situation with the earlier versions, such as version 9, but in the current version, there is an improvement. The slowness has drastically reduced, but a lot of improvement is still required in this particular area.
Another negative of this tool is that its license is costly. It is a bit more expensive than other tools.View full review »
Application Development Manager at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
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 also use XF definitions for the web application, but we can't create them on our own. So, we need to take support from the Worksoft team, and we have a dependency on them.View full review »
Initially, there were challenges because there is a concept called XF definitions, where each application type, e.g., the vendor and workflow, has to provide these XF definitions. Last year, these XF definitions were not provided. However, whenever we face any issues, we have to raise a support case, then they update the XF definitions in our enrollment. This year, they improved that and have the last XF definitions for SAP Fiori updated as of February 2021.
For integration, projects are usually agile. The customers are looking for integration with CI/CD tools, like Jenkins, Jira, Xray, Zephyr, etc. There is no clear documentation on how to integrate Certify with these tools. Also, we didn't receive the required support when needed. Worksoft used to have webinars on this, but those webinars used to be on after the integration was established and how the integration works, not on how to create an integration.
They should come up with a solution on how to do the integration. Jenkins, Jira, and Certify should be the same in every company. The only thing required is the pipeline code required to integrate Jenkins, Jira, and Certify if they make it available for everyone. Also, if an expert team could help customers to integrate, then that would really help our customers a lot.
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.View full review »
Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved.View full review »
I would like the Worksoft web application to be more robust. For example, SRM has different modules in SAP. When we automate some of those objects in the web app, it's initially fine, but after a couple of executions, we need to again record that particular object or get Worksoft to identify that particular object again. It works well with the SAP R/3 or GUI but there are limitations with the web application and Worksoft needs to improve that area. In terms of additional features, we'd like to see the default report which we generally get after the execution is completed. There should be an option to customize reports according to our requirements. Tosca provides that feature but it's unavailable in Worksoft.
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.View full review »
Senior Manager at a consultancy with 10,001+ employees
Worksoft Certify needs improvement on customization of reporting and how you report final outcomes. It needs more customization.View full review »
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.
Senior Solutions Architect at Orasi Software
We would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products.View full review »