Most Helpful Review
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 ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"The statistics that are available are very good."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"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."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
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."
"Our licensing fees are on a yearly basis, and while I think that the price is quite reasonable I am not allowed to share those details."
"We paid annually. There is a purchase cost, and then there is an ongoing maintenance fee."
"The cost is not that bad."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
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.
Top Answer: The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to.
Top Answer: The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies. When tests are recorded on to Silk Central, there is a… more »
Top Answer: The interface is user-friendly.
Top Answer: The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user. It would be better if… more »
Compared 32% of the time.
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 45% of the time.
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Also Known As
|Segue, SilkTest, Micro Focus Silk Test||SoapUI NG Pro|
|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.||SilkTest is robust and portable test automation for web, native, and enterprise software applications. Silk Test's portability enables users to test applications more effectively with lower complexity and cost in comparison to other functional testing tools on the market. Silk Test's role based testing enables business stakeholders, QA engineers, and developers to contribute to the whole automation testing process, which drives collaboration and increases the effectiveness of software testing.||For REST, SOAP and other popular API and IoT protocols, SoapUI NG Pro provides the industry's most comprehensive and easy-to-learn functional testing capabilities. Based on open core technology proven by millions of community members, SoapUI NG Pro helps you ensure that your APIs perform as intended, meet your business requirements, timeframes, and team skill sets right from day one.|
Learn more about Worksoft Certify
Learn more about Silk Test
Learn more about SoapUI Pro
|Kraft, Reliant Energy, Richemont, Applied Materials, Siemens PLM, Mosaic, Dow Corning, ebay, IBM, Accenture, Fortis BC, US Government, Southwest Airlines||Krung Thai Computer Services, Quality Kiosk, Mªller, AVG Technologies||Apple, Cisco, FedEx, eBay, Microsoft, MasterCard, Pfizer, Nike, Oracle, Volvo, Lufthansa, Disney, HP, Intel, U.S. Air Force, Schindler|
Consumer Goods Company13%
Computer Software Company36%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm7%
Computer Software Company38%
Comms Service Provider15%
Financial Services Firm11%
Financial Services Firm23%
Consumer Goods Company8%
Computer Software Company40%
Comms Service Provider14%
Financial Services Firm7%
Silk Test is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 6 reviews while SoapUI Pro is ranked 8th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews. Silk Test is rated 7.0, while SoapUI Pro is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Silk Test writes "An easy to use interface with a recording feature that our business users are happy with". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SoapUI Pro writes "An open source solution for mocking, load testing and developing". Silk Test is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Selenium HQ, Apache JMeter and Tricentis Tosca, whereas SoapUI Pro is most compared with ReadyAPI, Postman, Parasoft SOAtest, Apache JMeter and IBM Rational Functional Tester. See our Silk Test vs. SoapUI Pro report.
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.