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."At the moment, all our deploys depend on results of automation. If the tests are failing, then we know that something is wrong at the early stages of development."
"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"Certify integrates with other tools and it works very well with other machine testing applications."
"It's module based and it's giving functionality."
"Worksoft Certify supports multiple interfaces and applications like SAP, Web, or Silverlight Java, and Mainframe. It is easily integrated."
"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."
"We prefer Worksoft over other platforms because it's a low-code solution"
"If we write a new test that's 80 percent the same as an existing test, it is pretty straightforward to reuse the steps from existing tests for our new tests and build upon them."
"Worksoft has helped us position our company better because the product lets us show our value in terms of the benefits that we bring."
"We have been able to save on a lot of manual work for some very high skilled, expensive resources. This has been able to free up a significant amount of their time so they can spend more time on innovation and more creative, value-add activities. That's been one of the more rewarding things that we've done, and the most appreciated."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"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."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"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."
"Certify is integrated with Solution Manager, but this integration could be easier."
"I am aware that they have some challenges with some of their support resources, especially offshore which is very common. I don't think this is specifically a Worksoft issue. It always seems to be a software issue, and I know that Worksoft is aware of this and they are trying to make some improvements."
"Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved."
"The web application should be more robust."
"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."
"With the codeless process automation across packaged applications, once in a while, if we get a weird application that's not widely used, it gets a little stickier. First, the software has to learn the fields, so you have to identify all the fields. Once you do that, as long as there isn’t any non-standard code in the application, then it works fine. But there's that one step that you have to do, a step you don't have to do with SAP and Salesforce, for example."
"Capture 2.0 is not as useful when you get into more mature automation."
"Web UI testing was difficult in the beginning, as we had a homegrown product, and we had to do the proper object naming."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Worksoft Certify is ranked 6th 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.
