We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two API Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The reports and analysis tools are very good. They are the solution's most valuable features."
"We appreciate that the solution is free to use, as an open-source tool."
"When someone in our organization wants to test web applications, they use Apache JMeter since they face no hurdles while using the solution."
"It's a powerful tool that is open source."
"User-friendly and open source."
"This solution is easier to use than any other tool in the market; there is not even a requirement to learn a lot of scripting in order to use it."
"Very user-friendly and easy to use."
"The thread groups, samplers, and listeners, which are all determined by the script's requirements, are the most valuable features of this solution."
"Automation using Worksoft Certify has saved our testing times by 40% to 50%."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"People who don't have coding knowledge are capable of doing automation with Certify. It reduces coding and scripting dependencies."
"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."
"We love the Capture 2.0 feature. It seems to work very well."
"We prefer Worksoft over other platforms because it's a low-code solution"
"Worksoft has helped us position our company better because the product lets us show our value in terms of the benefits that we bring."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is good. Our clients like using it. It does not take long to create documentation."
"We would like more documentation to be provided for the advanced level features that are available in this solution, in order to improve development."
"They can improve it a little bit in terms of distribution load testing. We struggled with it during the distribution. In terms of reporting, runtime monitoring is not currently included, and it should be included. They can also improve it on the reporting side in terms of the comparison of the reports. They can also focus more on integration with CI/CD. Currently, people are using their own customized tools. It would be nice if Apache can provide some standard tools and procedures for integration with CI/CD tools like DPR. There are some tools, but it would be nice if official standard tools and procedures are available."
"The interface could be made more user-friendly."
"Self-healing and page rendering for the end-users are not available in Apache JMeter."
"Because so much is being done these days with authentication processes, a better system for either getting bearer tokens or some kind of token-based authentication prior to executing APIs would benefit the product. It is there, and you can do things. It is just not real clean at this point. There should be a better authentication process for JMeter or some automation or better guidelines for gaining and utilizing tokens on the fly."
"The tool should be made a bit more robust, and better support should be made available."
"What needs improvement in Apache JMeter is the very high load requirements when you want to scale it beyond certain thresholds. For example, small to mid-range testing is very easily done with Apache JMeter, but if you scale and increase the load, then it would be a problem because the tool consumes a lot of resources, probably because Apache JMeter provides an enriched UI experience, so it consumes a lot of memory and requires high CPU usage. This means you have to manage your infrastructure, or else you'll have high overhead expenses. As Apache JMeter is a heavyweight tool, that is an area for improvement, though I'm unsure if Apache can do something about it because it could be a result of the way it's architected. What I'd like to see from Apache JMeter in the future is for it to transition to the cloud, as a lot of cloud technologies emerge around the globe, and a lot of people prefer cloud-based solutions or cloud-native tools. Even if a company has a legacy system, it's still possible to transition to the cloud. I've worked with a company that was an on-premise company that moved to the cloud and became cloud-native. If Apache JMeter could transition to the cloud, similar to k6, then it could help lessen the intense resource consumption that's currently happening in Apache JMeter."
"They should improve the solution on its UI front."
"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."
"We can use it for the web application, but we are facing stability-related challenges. The properties are getting changed. For example, when I am performing any operation on the text box but the development team has done some changes, our Worksoft scripts are getting changed. This is the main challenge that we are facing while developing tests for the web application in Worksoft Certify, where any changes in the backend are indirectly impacting our scripts. For the web application, there is a scarcity of resources. Unlike an SAP application that doesn't require much experience, for the web application, you require experienced people."
"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."
"Our interactions with technical support has not been the best always and there is room for improvement especially with respect to the time taken to respond to cases. However, with the right contacts and reasonable escalations we have always managed to get quick attention on our cases."
"I would like the GUI to be more user-friendly and intuitive. We want to be able to move assets from project to another project without having to be in the same project or the same folder structure."
"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."
"Capture 2.0 is not as useful when you get into more mature automation."
"What could be improved in Worksoft Certify is its integration with other tools, for example, test management tools such as Jira, ALM, or any other test management tools. That integration is missing."
Apache JMeter is ranked 3rd in API Testing Tools with 82 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 7th in API Testing Tools with 64 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". 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". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, Katalon Studio and OpenText LoadRunner Professional, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and IBM DevOps Test UI. See our Apache JMeter vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best API Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all API 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.
