We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Micro Focus UFT One is you are able to use it with many other technologies. I have not had an instance where the solution was not able to automate or execute automation. I was able to use COBOL to manage some automation."
"Object Repository Technology, which is a good mean to identify graphical components of the applications under test."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"Provides all the in-built functionalities and is a wonderful tool."
"For my processes, Worksoft makes them faster when creating scripts."
"A specific feature that I found to be the most valuable in the solution for our company's work processes stems from the fact that it is useful as a low-code automation tool."
"We love the Capture 2.0 feature. It seems to work very well."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is good. Our clients like using it. It does not take long to create documentation."
"People focus on what they actually want to test and define it in a more detailed way. It shines a light on what they are testing, along with the speed and adaptability."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version."
"It is a huge improvement, as it recognizes complex general applications, where most tools won't recognize the objects within them."
"The overall design needs an entire overhaul. We prefer software designed to ensure the package isn't too loaded."
"The product doesn't provide free training for the basic features."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"The AI feature needs improvement. For banking applications, we input formatted text from documents, but the AI feature is recognizing three fields as one field, e.g., for a phone number, it puts all 10 digits in the international code or country code. Then, the script fails."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"It should consume less CPU, and the licensing cost could be lower."
"One feature that could be added to Capture 2.0 is generating a PDF file from your capture, so you can see your screenshots and steps."
"The overall speed and performance of this solution could be improved. In a future release, it would be useful to be able to do API testing."
"With one of our applications where we do check-in, Worksoft is not able to identify the Java-based application. We raised the ticket, but we were unable to resolve this using Worksoft."
"As part of our weekly regression, we wanted to use Execution Manager. However, from 2017 until March 2021, Execution Manager was not working as expected in our enrollment. It could have been better. If Execution Manager had worked well, then we could have doubled our productivity. Unfortunately, it had problems."
"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."
"I would like Worksoft Certify to do automation at any layer (the UI layer, API layer, or database layer) and challenge competitors in the RPA industry, like UiPath and Automation Anywhere."
"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."
"I would like BPP to have more filtering options during the report creation. This would make our customers happy."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 21 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 13 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Worksoft Certify writes "Beneficial script-less environment, simple process management, but vendor customization lacking". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and Ranorex Studio, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, Panaya Test Dynamix and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best API Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.