We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools.
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"The support team is top-notch. I have a great relationship with them. They are extremely honest and responsive."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"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."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."
"It's very different versus other tools in the past, which were not very modern. It easy for people to automate."
"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."
"It helps us to implement automation testing as part of most projects, so the need for manual testing can be reduced. This really accelerates the testing process as a whole. Before, where it could take ten days to test a project, now it takes only one or two days to do the complete testing."
"One big advantage of Worksoft Certify is its integration with SAP Solution Manager..."
"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."
"It is very user-friendly with an appealing UI, unlike a lot of other automation tools that we have evaluated. The fact that it can be used to across SAP and non-SAP applications (including web-based apps) is a big advantage. Using Certify Process Capture functionality has helped in hassle free test design creation, without the need to spend any extra effort to capture test steps and screenshots. The integration elements across HPE ALM and Solution Manager also work well."
"Improvement means for us that we have to be better in quality. Due to automation, you can run every automated test case twice a week. If you do it manually, you do it once per release. This is a quality improvement."
"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."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"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."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"It is poor for a web based application."
"Technical support's first response to us is usually late."
"Worksoft Certify's support team should respond more promptly when we are stuck with certain issues and looking for a solution."
"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."
"We can't get the process intelligence module to work properly. We can't get the impact comment that analyzes the incoming development code to run, either. We've also had bugs in the CTM and execution manager in the past year. It took technical support a long time to resolve this issue. We escalated it so that the vice president of the company was included as well."
"We would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products."
"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."
"One feature that we have been asking for has been to treat tests as code and store the source code for tests in a configuration management tool. Right now, for version control of testing, it's all internally within the tool. If we have a test of a business process and want to revive that test, our methodology now is purely manual work. We go into the tool, create a copy of the existing test, and call the next one: v2. Now, we have two of them and the only way you can tell them apart is by its naming convention."
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 Sauce Labs, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Panaya Test Dynamix.
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.
