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.
"Language support - since it supports Java and other programming languages it is easy to integrate with other systems."
"I like that it is a robust and free open source. There is a lot of community support available, and there are a lot of developers using them. There's good community support."
"It is more stable in comparison to other solutions because they have quite some experience in the market."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"Selenium WebDriver and Selenium IDE are useful."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"The most valuable features are the ability to test and debug."
"It's very different versus other tools in the past, which were not very modern. It easy for people to automate."
"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."
"Our business users are doing regression testing as their day job. This is an add-on to their daily work. With everything so pressured in the industry, automation takes the pressure of these users."
"Worksoft Certify Mostly is an easy-to-learn tool and does not require any extensive training."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version."
"We prefer Worksoft over other platforms because it's a low-code solution"
"It is a huge improvement, as it recognizes complex general applications, where most tools won't recognize the objects within them."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"To simplify the development process, everyone needs to do a Selenium Framework to acquire the web application functions and features from Selenium methods."
"There are stability issues with Internet Explorer only."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"It would be better if we could use it without having the technical skills to run the scripting test."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"Sometimes we face challenges with Selenium HQ. There are third party tools that we use, for example for reading the images, that are not easy to plug in. The third party add-ons are difficult to get good configuration and do not have good support. I would like to see better integration with other products."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"I would like BPP to have more filtering options during the report creation. This would make our customers happy."
"The stability needs help. This is main thing that needs help, and if it's not the stability, then it's Worksoft's ability to respond to issues."
"Certify is integrated with Solution Manager, but this integration could be easier."
"Worksoft Certify needs improvement on customization of reporting and how you report final outcomes."
"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 product had some UI issues."
"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."
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.