Manjunath-RaoSAP Manager at a logistics company
Anonymous UserQA Analyst II at Regal Entertainment Group
Anonymous UserSenior Automation Engineer at a retailer
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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 easy of use and ease of integration of Worksoft Certify are very good."
"During our yearly upgrades, we have now gotten them down to ten days or less. We have Worksoft run all our integration tests, where it used to take probably six weeks to do that manually."
"Improvement means for us that we have to be better in quality. Due to automation, you can run every automated test case twice a week. If you do it manually, you do it once per release. This is a quality improvement."
"We found that Worksoft is easier to use because our business experts can do the tests. We didn't have to have IT experts."
"The most valuable feature is having a no-code solution for automation, so our QA team and some of our business users can work on automation. Then, they don't have to be developers."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"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."
"Supplying devices to a testing team of possibly close to one thousand testers and developers is a great undertaking but Sauce Labs has made this very easy and a welcomed solution."
"As stated earlier we use Sauce Labs for a combination of automated testing and manual testing. Therefore the most useful features are the ability to run the functional automated tests via a Sauce Labs tunnels which allows access to applications in our internal network. The second most useful feature is the manual side."
"The most valuable feature is the cross-browser feature, it has many android and iOS devices both simulators and real devices. It's easy to integrate. I also like video recording too."
"Sauce Lab analytics helped us to get detailed knowledge on test cases execution and logs."
"I have found the live test section with Sauce Labs to be extremely valuable. When you can't quite figure out why a test is failing, you can go to the live test results section within their tool and launch your test (specifying a given OS/browser, or device) manually and step through the test to see the issue more clearly, usually opening up the developer's tool console and watching the network calls and console (within Chrome) to usually find the underlying issue."
"The insights section provides a great overall state of the automation suite and can identify trends relatively quickly. If we see a dip in our passing rate over time, we can look at what changed when the test started failing to find the root cause rather than doing a quick fix to find that the test fails a short time later."
"Live device testing. As we all know, It's really hard and challenging to find/purchase many real devices to test because it will be costly and not all the team can be able to purchase all of the devices out there. We used to have a lot of real devices under our labs. However, it is really time-consuming to maintain those devices and make sure they are up to date with the testing requirements."
"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."
"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."
"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 ran into some issues with the version that we were on during the initial setup. We ran into a bug on one version, then they upgraded us to a new version, and we got hit with another bug. So, they had to put us in a beta. That was a little frustrating. However, besides the bugs that we ran into, the install was pretty straightforward."
"The product had some UI issues."
"We have had run ins with some bugs on Business Process Procedure (BPP) and Execution Manager."
"If I had to speak of an area that could be improved it would probably have to be the speed of interaction with the devices. There is at times a considerable amount of lag while using some of the virtual and at times even physical device farm"
"We have found that during automated testing this can be very slow. This causes inconsistencies with the tests. It's very difficult to rely on a service when you can't be sure if a test will pass or fail the next time it runs. This means building in a lot of sync time into the tests which in turn slows them down. If this speed could be improved then the service would be much better."
"The only drawback is the speed, it will be good if we have a server in Asia too. It will be great if we can improve speed while initialization and execution."
"They should provide a JIRA integration plugin so that we can easily log issues."
"Overall, I think Sauce Labs provides us with a valuable tool and resource. As far as what could be improved, I would say the overall test execution time. Some of the calls take a bit longer than I expect, for example in web browser tests; while the execution time isn't obnoxious, it could be improved so that overall tests/test suites finish faster."
"The one issue I have is the 14-day trial that a new user gets for free. I understand the concept of the trial period; however, I think this could be revamped to a free 30-minute run time every few months or after a significant update once the trial period has ended."
"As a web product QA team, we sometimes need to spot check some new child site on multiple browsers and OS(es). It was a little time consuming for us since we need to click on each of the browser/OS combinations and start a new session to test. Every sprint, with new features and child pages being added, we mostly need to do the same steps over and over again."
"Another feature that could still be improved on is more error clarity. Sometimes when running automated scripts the test will fail on the device side instead of the script and errors only show a 500 try again message instead of a detailed script that could of a been a timeout error from the code."
"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."
"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."
"I think they came out with a different type of licensing specifically for testing. Therefore, you don't have to use a more expensive user license, you can use an automation license. So potentially, if we had 100 use cases, we could spin up a 100 different machines, have them all run and be done in five minutes. That would be the goal, but I don't know if that would actually succeed or not."
"This solution has enabled us to automate in order to tremendously save time. Only first time when you are recording and creating the script will you spend some time with it, the rest of the time, you are just executing."
"If we do one manual process, it could take approximately two hours. The same process using Worksoft probably takes ten minutes."
"We have seen ROI by being able to free up and give time back to the business for other value-added work."
"On our last big SAP implementation project, we inserted an automation resource into the beginning of the project. Between automating regression processes, data staging, and using our automation to help repair cutover and conversion issues. We saved the project about $1,700,000."
"Worksoft has paid for itself fives times over."
"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."
Sauce Labs provides the world's largest secure and highly scalable automation cloud for testing desktop, mobile web, native, and hybrid applications. Sauce Labs helps companies accelerate software development cycles, improve application quality, and deploy with confidence across 450+ browser/OS/device/platform combinations.
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:
Sauce Labs is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 10 reviews while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 12 reviews. Sauce Labs is rated 8.4, while Selenium HQ is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Sauce Labs writes "Helps us in reducing the number of manual testing". 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". Sauce Labs is most compared with BrowserStack, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting, HeadSpin and froglogic Squish, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Functional, Tricentis Tosca, Telerik Test Studio, Ranorex Studio and Silk Test. See our Sauce Labs 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.