We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Worksoft Certify based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The main difference between the two solutions is that Worksoft Certify is expensive whereas Selenium HQ is open-source and completely free.
"It's available open-source and free. To install it, I just have to download it. It also doesn't require too many hardware resources compared to Micro Focus."
"Selenium's open-source nature is a key advantage. Its extensive support for diverse web technologies."
"The main characteristic that is useful is that the tool is completely free."
"Ability to integrate with every other tool."
"It is very stable."
"Selenuim helps us during testing. We are able to reduce the number and frequency of manual efforts by using scripts."
"Selenium HQ's most valuable feature is picking up and entering values from web pages."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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 tool is easy to use. It is a drag and drop Microsoft type of solution."
"Automation using Worksoft Certify has saved our testing times by 40% to 50%."
"For my processes, Worksoft makes them faster when creating scripts."
"The turn around time for getting the automation tester familiarized with the tool is very quick, as it doesn't have any coding. It is fairly simple to understand."
"Worksoft Certify Mostly is an easy-to-learn tool and does not require any extensive training."
"It is a pretty easy tool to use as far as automated testing tools go."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"It would be awesome if there was a standalone implementation of Selenium for non-developer users."
"Selenium HQ doesn't have any self-healing capabilities."
"It would be better to have a simplified way to locate and identify web elements."
"It would be better if it accommodated non-techy end-users. I think it's still a product for developers. That's why it's not common for end-users, and especially for RPA activities or tasks. It's hard to automate tasks for end-users. If it will be easier, more user-friendly, and so on, perhaps it can be more interesting for this kind of user."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"Could have additional readability and abstraction."
"Selenium HQ could have better interaction with SAP products."
"One drawback to Selenium is that there is nothing like an object repository, such as that found in QTP, especially considering continuous integration practices that have become common nowadays."
"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."
"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."
"The product had some UI issues."
"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."
"The primary area for improvement is the support service."
"It would be great if our business testers could develop their own automated test cases. With every release you do, you have to go back and touch your old test cases and bring them up to speed, or develop new test cases. In the beginning, that is a challenge because you have to have someone who is certified in the tool to help you develop these test cases."
"It is poor for a web based application."
"We would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 33 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 13 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Worksoft Certify writes "Beneficial script-less environment, simple process management, but vendor customization lacking". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Telerik Test Studio, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test and OpenText UFT One, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Panaya Test Dynamix and SmartBear TestComplete. See our Selenium HQ vs. Worksoft Certify report.
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.