We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting 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."SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"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."
"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."
"It's pretty seamless with SAP and Salesforce because they've built in the field definitions and all the things that you need. You literally turn it on and execute your script and it records it. It's very simple. Then you can go back and put in some of the other functions. For example, instead of hard-coding field selections, you put in a data table so you can run it multiple times or with multiple data. It was actually written to work very well with SAP."
"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."
"The Worksoft Capture feature is most valuable. For example, if you are creating a sales order in SAP, you do not need to go to each field and do everything. You do not need to write code for each and every line. You can just turn on the Worksoft Capture feature and manually perform your actions. It will capture all manual actions, and it will give you the steps. It will write the steps for you."
"Worksoft Certify Mostly is an easy-to-learn tool and does not require any extensive training."
"What I found most valuable in Worksoft Certify is its identification feature. I also found its automation feature valuable."
"It is highly scalable and reusable. It is easy for team members to maintain and use with confidence. There is great versatility."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"The product had some UI issues."
"For Execution Manager, I would like it to be more robust interface and be able to view the remote machines full screen instead of a little window."
"We're really hopeful for the mobile testing in Worksoft Certify going forward."
"I would like to see the impact analysis integrated with the performance testing tool. We have multiple tools doing multiple items. I would like to have one common tool."
"Pricing is a bit high and we would like to have the availability of a trail environment for beginners and training would be great to have and easier to expand and use by more and more consultants."
"Better automation capability would be helpful."
"The technical support has been good, but sometimes there are little delays. A lot of times when we need support, it's an emergency situation."
"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."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools while Worksoft Certify is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". 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". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and UiPath Test Suite. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
