We performed a comparison between OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"I like LoadRunner's ability to use multiple protocols. That's one of the greatest features along with the ability to test service calls between the app and server."
"The initial setup and installation of the software were very easy and straightforward."
"The most valuable feature depends on what we're doing at the time. In the past, the greatest feature was the ability to record and play back to produce a script. Another great feature is that we can monitor the system. They also support many protocols to perform load testing."
"I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten."
"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."
"With autotesting, we have been able to eliminate duplication of test cases across those four areas. This has helped us knock down our number of test cases. Our test cases are also running more optimally. Therefore, it has very much helped in that sense, so we were able to eliminate a lot of test cases and get out of manual silos by running on autotesting, which is more efficient."
"People who don't have coding knowledge are capable of doing automation with Certify. It reduces coding and scripting dependencies."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version."
"It is a huge improvement, as it recognizes complex general applications, where most tools won't recognize the objects within them."
"We were able to use Worksoft to automate all of the actions that we would have to take after an SAP refresh. This way we do the refresh, then that night or right afterwards, we run the Worksoft script and it resets all of our testing users. This sets them up with the right access, the right approvals, and just sets up everything on the back-end so we can do our scripts the next night."
"The turn around time for getting the automation tester familiarized with the tool is very quick, as it doesn't have any coding. It is fairly simple to understand."
"It's module based and it's giving functionality."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"There is room for improvement of the pilot processing, the dump analysis, and forwarding results based on the dump analysis. We have a generator, root controller, different agents, and an analyzer, so all of these are very important when it comes to LoadRunner."
"I would like to have better support for adding more users per load generator."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"The product is not stable and reliable in the version we are currently using."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"There's a reporting part of the cloud that could be improved a little bit."
"Web UI testing was difficult in the beginning, as we had a homegrown product, and we had to do the proper object naming."
"It would be great if our business testers could develop their own automated test cases. With every release you do, you have to go back and touch your old test cases and bring them up to speed, or develop new test cases. In the beginning, that is a challenge because you have to have someone who is certified in the tool to help you develop these test cases."
"In the past, when we've tried to automate some of our web apps, it has not been as robust. If there were one thing that could be improved, it's interaction with web applications. The issue we were running into is that it was harder to identify the objects than it is with some of the other architectured applications."
"Worksoft Certify needs a bit of improvement for its web-based processes. It can be difficult because you need to recall the maps, then you still have to add-on for your browser. When you are using the browser-based testing, you cannot even move your mouse or do anything on your system when you are using the web-based testing. Therefore, it needs a bit of improvement on that side. While it does work, it needs improvement. From the SAP side, there is nothing better than Worksoft Certify. However, from the web-based, we are moving towards Fiori. SAP will soon be totally web-based. For Fiori, they need to be great with SAP testing. Thus, Worksoft has to improve the web-based testing part for Certify."
"There was a change to Capture 2.0. In the end, there have been some challenges with the newer version. Therefore, the company testers, the local ones, do not want to use Capture 2.0."
"When it comes to mobile testing, we have a small bottleneck there. You have to buy third-party separate licenses if you want to test on a mobile. Business wise we see room for improvement there, although it's that really critical for us."
"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."
"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."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
OpenText LoadRunner Professional is ranked 2nd in Performance Testing Tools with 77 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 64 reviews. OpenText LoadRunner Professional is rated 8.4, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText LoadRunner Professional writes "A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications". 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 LoadRunner Professional is most compared with Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise, OpenText LoadRunner Cloud, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Performance Tester, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Ranorex Studio.
We monitor all Performance 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.
