We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The inside object repository is nice. We can use that and learn it through the ALM connection. That's a good feature. The reporting and smart identification features are also excellent."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"This product is easy to use, understand, and maintain."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"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)."
"People who don't have coding knowledge are capable of doing automation with Certify. It reduces coding and scripting dependencies."
"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."
"Mostly in the area of project testing, the most immediate benefit is when you historically have manual testers do a certain job, and a full regression testing was previously done 100 percent manually. We have had cases where the release testing for an entire region would take around 12 weeks. With Worksoft, we are now down to two to three weeks. So, that is one use case where we have had success."
"The most valuable feature is having a no-code solution for automation, so our QA team and some of our business users can work on automation. Then, they don't have to be developers."
"The tool is easy to use. It is a drag and drop Microsoft type of solution."
"The most valuable feature is its time saving. Once development is complete, the short time that it takes to execute a test is invaluable. It saves a number of dollars and man-hours."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"We have had some issues with stability, where it crashes sometimes."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"They should include an automated feature to load backlog tests."
"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."
"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."
"We're really hopeful for the mobile testing in Worksoft Certify going forward."
"It is poor for a web based application."
"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 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."
"There have been some previous security concerns with the way that Capture has worked. When you turn it on, you don't know what it's capturing. This has raised some concerns in the past, especially in our European regions."
"Technical support's first response to us is usually late."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Test Automation Tools with 89 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 64 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". 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". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, UiPath Test Suite and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors, best Functional Testing Tools vendors, and best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.
