We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Worksoft Certify based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The main difference between the two solutions is that Worksoft Certify is expensive whereas Selenium HQ is open-source and completely free.
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to configure a lot of automated processes."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are the automation of all UI tests, its open-source, reliability, and is supported by Google."
"The most valuable features are ExpectedConditions, actions, assertions, verifications, flexible rates, and third-party integrations."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium is how easy it is to automate."
"The scripting methodology is easy to learn. It is easy to maintain because it is presented in a simple, narrative way. You don't need to know programming." "It has reduced our test maintenance time by more than 50 percent because we don't have to do manual test processes. We have saved over 150 man-hours monthly. It has increased our delivery times. We went from 200 man-hours down (three weeks work time frame) to approximately 40 man-hours (three days work time frame)."
"We love the Capture 2.0 feature. It seems to work very well."
"The ease of use is superior to anything on the market. It's very easy to integrate. We've been very impressed with the tool. Because we primarily use the configuration with SAP, the integration is pretty seamless. But we have used our own in-house VB app as well, and it's worked very well with that."
"We found that Worksoft is easier to use because our business experts can do the tests. We didn't have to have IT experts."
"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."
"The biggest feature is the fact that it's codeless. It takes away the problem of finding people with the correct programming language, since there are multiple such languages. It saves time in introducing people to the solution because they don't need programming knowledge, they just need to be able to think logically. This makes it vastly usable by more people who are not even acquainted with IT at all."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version."
"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."
"The stop control needs to be improved with a configuration tool to enable desktop support."
"The reporting part can be better."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"Coding skills are required to use Selenium, so it could be made more user-friendly for non-programmers."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"The technical support comes on, and says, "Oh, so-and-so link is here, go through that link, and make the modifications." I'm not comfortable in making those changes. I want to schedule a call, share my screen, and have them fix it for me."
"The updates for SAP Fiori have been great, where previously we saw a lot of issues. A year ago, it used to fail miserably."
"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."
"We ran into some issues with the version that we were on during the initial setup. We ran into a bug on one version, then they upgraded us to a new version, and we got hit with another bug. So, they had to put us in a beta. That was a little frustrating. However, besides the bugs that we ran into, the install was pretty straightforward."
"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 are looking for some enhancements on the Capture 2.0 tool. This would give us the ability to control it directly, like we could with Capture 1.0. Right now, Capture 2.0 doesn't really work for our Business Analysts."
"With the codeless process automation across packaged applications, once in a while, if we get a weird application that's not widely used, it gets a little stickier. First, the software has to learn the fields, so you have to identify all the fields. Once you do that, as long as there isn’t any non-standard code in the application, then it works fine. But there's that one step that you have to do, a step you don't have to do with SAP and Salesforce, for example."
"Better automation capability would be helpful."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". 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". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Telerik Test Studio, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, UiPath Test Suite and Panaya Test Dynamix. See our Selenium HQ vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Functional Testing 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.
