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.
"Selenium is the fastest tool compared to other competitors. It can run on any language, like Java, Python, C++, and .NET. So we can test any application on Selenium, whether it's mobile or desktop."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The solution is free to use."
"I like the record and playback features. We also appreciate that it's not just writing on a script that we create. While we were browsing our web application, it automatically records all the clicks and movements of points. We also appreciate the fact that it provides screenshots of everything in the output."
"Selenium web driver - Java."
"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."
"All the features in Selenium to automate the UI."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"Certify's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications like SAP Fiori was good when we started and they developed it to be even better. We all know that web applications can change objects in DOM quite fast and it breaks tests. To counter it Certify has made object recognition more flexible and generic, so we don't have any troubles."
"We prefer Worksoft over other platforms because it's a low-code solution"
"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."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is good. Our clients like using it. It does not take long to create documentation."
"It is highly scalable and reusable. It is easy for team members to maintain and use with confidence. There is great versatility."
"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)."
"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."
"One of the bigger value-adds that we had was extracting data from our warning systems to be inputted into our new learning system."
"Selenium Grid set-up is bit complex."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"The drawback is the solution is not easy to learn."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"We can only use Selenium HQ for desktop applications which would be helpful. We are only able to do online based applications."
"If they can integrate more recording features, like UFT, it would be helpful for automation, but it's not necessary. They can also add a few more reporting features for advanced reporting."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"They should add more functionality to the solution."
"The product had some UI issues."
"Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved."
"Reportings are not user-friendly."
"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."
"Technical support's first response to us is usually late."
"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."
"The technical support of the product is an area of concern where certain improvements are required."
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.