Jens NeuhausEnterprise Architect SAP Solutions at a computer software company
Varghese JohnLead QA Engineer at Xgen Business Systems
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
"It does allow for good reusability. When it's designed properly and utilized properly, we can put things in a way that allows for reusability, meaning a lot of reuse of VA01, if they're very similar flows, to keep it simple."
"Certify integrates with other tools and it works very well with other machine testing applications."
"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."
"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."
"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)."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts."
"The decoupling of the test scripts from the data and the application is a nice feature. When you are creating test scripts, for example, for a web application, you have to learn about Worksoft and how the controls of a screen can be interpreted by Worksoft. For that purpose, you create so-called maps. These maps are loosely coupled to your scripts, which means if the application is changed, the control will be changed from an identifier. You don't need to rework the entire script. You only need to do these adjustments in the map, and then you can automatically reuse the scripts. So, it is really a smart move to have the decoupling of scripts, maps, and data."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to create code from a flow chart, and then run the code through it."
"The solution is based on a Windows model, where adding users is just a few clicks. It is easy to manage users and add them."
"The most valuable features would be the image recognition and the OCR."
"DAI's newest release allows us to test via scripts rather than models, because we have done 95 percent of our development in functional, not through modeling. I am really happy that then we can use the controller to run scripts rather than having to translate things to models. There are lots of options."
"The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment took about seven months."
"You can build your own framework. I think that's the most powerful feature. You can connect with a lot of other tools that use frameworks, or keywords, etc. That helps make it a stronger solution."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"The most valuable feature is the Selenium grid, which allows us to run tests in parallel."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"What I like the most about this product is that it gives us a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do."
"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."
"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."
"An area that I would like to see improved is how the permissions are applied. If you're applying permissions groups to a user, one of the options is to delete the group entirely and lose the entire permission group, rather than just deleting the permission from the user, which seems a little silly. In my opinion, that whole module of permissions is very confusing and lends itself to common errors."
"Pricing is a bit high and we would like to have the availability of a trail environment for beginners and training would be great to have and easier to expand and use by more and more consultants."
"Better automation capability would be helpful."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products."
"We found that we had issues regarding the VPN setup, which is one of the reasons that we did not purchase this solution."
"The reporting function is a bit shallow. The solution does not offer very comprehensive reporting in terms of your test results. The reporting time and the logs are very high level as well. These areas need improvement."
"In terms of additional features, it would be helpful to have one package for all testing. You have the manager, the AI, then you have functional, and about 10 different packages for installing."
"The IDE could be even more full-featured. Because I was a developer, I was very spoiled by either Visual Studio Code or Visual Studio for shortcuts. For example, I was able to say "ctor" and hit Tab and it would create a template of a constructor for me... It would be great, when I want to create a new function, if there were shortcut commands like those that helped create all of the functions, or if there were shortcut features to do any of the complex plans."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"I would like to see XPath made more reliable so that it can be used in all browsers."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"There should be standardized frameworks to build automation."
"The initial investment is probably a little high. It was a little hard for me to sell, but it was a one-shot deal and that's why it's so high. All we are doing now is paying annual maintenance, which we don't have to do if we don't want upgrades, but we do."
"Purchasing and licensing are okay. Go for the perpetual licenses. In that way, you own a license, then you can purchase maintenance and support on top of that, so you don't have to pay every year for it. Even if you don't want it a contract with Worksoft Certify in the future, you will have your own license of it. Then, if your usage is not that much, you can have one or two perpetual licenses. However, if you want to run your processes, you will need more licenses, e.g., using the run-only licenses. They are really cheap compared to the full licensing."
"I can only judge based on the situation that we had around six years ago when we did the tool evaluation. Worksoft was not the cheapest, but it provided the value. For 25 concurrent licenses, we paid more than €400,000, so it was not cheap. In the end, if you see how much time you are saving and compare it with others, its price is okay. We had also compared its cost with the licensing costs for HP and Tricentis, and they were at another level. Now, as we have already booked the licenses, we only have to pay an annual maintenance fee, which is 70%, and that is okay."
"We are satisfied with the pricing."
"It's an open-source tool that you can work with at any time without any cost."
"This is an open-source product so there is no cost other than manpower."
A modern AI-assisted approach to test automation that helps you create products that delight users, deliver at DevOps speed, test the full customer experience, test ANY technology, and predict the quantified impact of new product versions on the user before release.
Selenium HQ is a suite of tools to automate web browsers across many platforms. Selenium runs in many browsers and operating systems and can be controlled by many programming languages and testing frameworks. Selenium consist of two types:
Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence is ranked 12th in Functional Testing Tools with 4 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 16 reviews. Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence writes "Enables end-to-end testing, including smoke tests and several others". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Gives a lot of freedom to code anything, there is no restriction on the type of function you can do". Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, Micro Focus UFT One, froglogic Squish and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Telerik Test Studio, froglogic Squish, Ranorex Studio and IBM Rational Functional Tester. See our Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence vs. Selenium HQ report.
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.