Most Helpful Review
Use Eggplant Functional? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Eggplant Functional vs. Ranorex Studio and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
456,966 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The ease of use is superior to anything on the market. It's very easy to integrate. We've been very impressed with the tool. Because we primarily use the configuration with SAP, the integration is pretty seamless. But we have used our own in-house VB app as well, and it's worked very well with that."
"We love the Capture 2.0 feature. It seems to work very well."
"The ability to work with the data, with recordsets, and plug those into the scripts is very easy and very powerful. We use it extensively."
"It's script-free, which is really important for our end users because we are usually dealing with colleagues who are not developers and who do not always have the technical background of developing and scripting. It's very useful that there is a nice UI and the tool is script-free."
"One big advantage of Worksoft Certify is its integration with SAP Solution Manager..."
"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."
"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."
"It is very easy to maintain. With scripts, I can change one line and in one step. Whatever I want, I can do. I don't need to be an expert to use it."
"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."
"Support is very quick. You can write to them and on the same day, they will respond. This is one of the best features."
"The scalability is very good. It's probably one of the better tools I've seen on the market."
"This is a powerful, reliable and versatile all-around application testing suite."
"Code Conversion is one of the great features because sometimes, the automation tool doesn't have the capability of maneuvering around two specific evaluations."
"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."
"The definitions for the objects need to be automated. They need to be recognized automatically by Worksoft Certify instead of changing them back and forth manually. This is also something that Worksoft is currently working on."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see the impact analysis integrated with the performance testing tool. We have multiple tools doing multiple items. I would like to have one common tool."
"We are looking for some enhancements on the Capture 2.0 tool. This would give us the ability to control it directly, like we could with Capture 1.0. Right now, Capture 2.0 doesn't really work for our Business Analysts."
"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 is unstable, there will be times when a test that we are running in Certify will just stop, and it will say, "Aborted." There will be errors. There will be no explanation as to why it happens. It has now happened maybe one out of 20 times. When it happens, I just tell our QA team to stop Certify and restart it, hoping we don't see it again."
"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."
"If there are many queries on the web page, Ranorex will not render the page correctly. I had about 1,000 queries on the page, and the solution was not able to handle it."
"One of the areas the service could be improved would be to have the training in Italian."
"For our purposes it requires integration with other products to get out the results in the format we want them. Adding this to the product could improve it."
"The object detection functionality needs to be improved."
Pricing and Cost Advice
"We would purchase more licenses right now if they were cheaper. Pricing is a little bit of a hindrance."
"It is expensive compared to some of the other automation tools in the market. However, the benefits and ROI has proved that it has been a good investment."
"The initial upfront cost in terms of licenses, plus all the money that we spent developing tests, has proven it's worth. Now, we can do a regression test suite in ten days as opposed to sixteen weeks."
"Our ROI is primarily a reduction in testing time. The testing, when we were doing it manually, was 30 to 40 percent of the project's cost."
"We ended up buying too many licenses. They were very good at selling it to us, and probably oversold it a little. We bought 45 licenses and have never used more than twenty. However, they gave us a pretty significant discount on the bigger license, so it made sense for us to buy enough that we wouldn't have to go back and ask for more."
"We could use Certify to do robotic process automation, which is basically running a process on your correction system instead of your test system. Therefore, we may do that in the future."
"By using automation, it reduced about 75 percent of the time when compared to any other tool."
"Saving money and better quality, these are the benefits of Certify."
Information Not Available
"We paid €3,000 (approximately $3,300 USD) for this solution. When you add the runtime licenses it will be €3,500 (approximately $3,900 USD)."
"There are several types of licenses and you need to choose depending on your needs and level of usage."
"The licensing fees depend on the number of users."
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: It does allow for good reusability. When it's designed properly and utilized properly, we can put things in a way that… more »
Top Answer: The licensing is yearly.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Compared 32% of the time.
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Compared 34% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 17% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Also Known As
|TestPlant eggPlant Functional|
|Worksoft is a leading global provider of automation software for high-velocity business process testing and discovery. Enterprises worldwide use Worksoft intelligent automation to innovate faster, lower technology risk, reduce costs, improve quality, and deeply understand their real end-to-end business processes. Global 5000 companies across all industries choose Worksoft for high speed process discovery and functional testing of digital, web, cloud, mobile, big data, and dozens of enterprise applications, including SAP, Oracle, and Salesforce.com.||eggPlant Functional helps you test your applications better, faster, and with less effort by automating the execution of your functional testing. eggPlant Functional has revolutionized functional test automation with its patented image-based approach to GUI testing. eggPlant can interact with any device (including mobile, tablet, desktop, server, and the Internet of Things) in the same way a user does, by looking at the screen. eggPlant uses sophisticated image and text search algorithms to locate objects on the screen in a completely technology agnostic manner and then drive the device. eggPlant’s user-centric test automation approach also makes it incredibly intuitive to write tests, so anyone can be productive with eggPlant within a few hours.|
Ranorex is a leading software development company that offers innovative test automation software. Ranorex makes testing easy, saves time in the testing process and empowers clients to ensure the highest quality of their products. Its flexible tools and quick ROI make it the ideal choice for companies of virtually any size – and this is why thousands of clients in over 60 countries trust in its excellence.
Learn more about Worksoft Certify
Learn more about Eggplant Functional
Learn more about Ranorex Studio
|Kraft, Reliant Energy, Richemont, Applied Materials, Siemens PLM, Mosaic, Dow Corning, ebay, IBM, Accenture, Fortis BC, US Government, Southwest Airlines||Meredith Corporation, QNX CARŽ Platform for Infotainment||Siemens, TomTom, Adidas, Canon, Lufthansa, Roche, Cisco, Philipps, Dell, Motorola, Toshiba, Citrix, Ericsson, sage, Continental, IBM, Credit Suisse, Vodafone|
Consumer Goods Company13%
Computer Software Company36%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm7%
Computer Software Company35%
Comms Service Provider13%
Financial Services Firm6%
Computer Software Company25%
Financial Services Firm19%
Computer Software Company33%
Comms Service Provider19%
No Data Available
Eggplant Functional is ranked 19th in Functional Testing Tools with 3 reviews while Ranorex Studio is ranked 15th in Functional Testing Tools with 4 reviews. Eggplant Functional is rated 7.4, while Ranorex Studio is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Eggplant Functional writes "Enables you to insert all the various elements into the repository and then run your tests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ranorex Studio writes "Offers a strong suite of tools for application testing of mobile, desktop, and API apps". Eggplant Functional is most compared with Selenium HQ, Tricentis Tosca, SmartBear TestComplete, Micro Focus UFT One and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Ranorex Studio is most compared with SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ and Experitest. See our Eggplant Functional vs. Ranorex Studio report.
We monitor all Regression 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.