We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Functional Tester 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."It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"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."
"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."
"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)."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"The most valuable features of Worksoft Certify are the way we can maintain the processes and sub-processes inside. We can immediately identify and replicate multiple objects in the application without having a major issue with it. We are able to do a lot of operations even with the solution being completely scriptless. That is a large advantage compared with other automation tools."
"It provides a lot of time savings. We are always ready to execute a task whenever the business asks us. We saved approximately 7000 hours in 2018."
"One big advantage of Worksoft Certify is its integration with SAP Solution Manager..."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"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."
"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."
"For the couple of the issues that we were really scratching our heads over, we were in communication with the technical support several times, but they never got back to us."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support's first response to us is usually late."
"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."
"For Execution Manager, I would like it to be more robust interface and be able to view the remote machines full screen instead of a little window."
More IBM Rational Functional Tester Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Rational Functional Tester is ranked 21st in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. IBM Rational Functional Tester is rated 7.2, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Functional Tester writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". 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". IBM Rational Functional Tester is most compared with Katalon Studio, Selenium HQ, HCL OneTest, Tricentis Tosca and OpenText UFT One, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Apache JMeter.
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.
