We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT Developer 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."This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"The solution helps to accelerate software testing automation. It will help to reduce lead time and increase productivity and efficiency."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"One aspect that I like about Micro Focus UFT Developer is the ability to integrate it into a testing framework as a library."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The most valuable feature for me is the number of protocols that can be tested. It not only tests Web, but also SAP, Siebel, .Net, and even pdf."
"One of the biggest advantages for this solution is codeless automation. Because it is codeless, you can train people within a couple of hours."
"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."
"The easy of use and ease of integration of Worksoft Certify are very good."
"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."
"Provides all the in-built functionalities and is a wonderful tool."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts."
"The tool is easy to use. It is a drag and drop Microsoft type of solution."
"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."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"The parallel execution of the tests needs improvement. When we are running tests in LeanFT, there are some limitations in terms of running the same tests simultaneously across different browsers. If I'm running a test, let's say to log in, I should be able to execute it through IE, through Microsoft Edge, through Chrome, through Mozilla, etc. This capability doesn't exist in LeanFT. Parallel execution of the test cases across different browsers need to be added."
"Object definition and recognition need improvement, especially with calendar controls. I faced challenges with schedulers and calendars."
"The support for .NET Framework and Visual Studio in Micro Focus UFT Developer is currently limited. At present, only Visual Studio 2019 is supported, despite the release of a newer version (2022). Similarly, the tool only supports up to .NET Framework version 4.3.8, while there have been six newer versions released. This is an area that could be improved upon, particularly in the Windows environment."
"Integration with other tools can become a costly exercise."
"The pricing could be improved."
"We have had run ins with some bugs on Business Process Procedure (BPP) and Execution Manager."
"Web UI testing was difficult in the beginning, as we had a homegrown product, and we had to do the proper object naming."
"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."
"I would like the GUI to be more user-friendly and intuitive. We want to be able to move assets from project to another project without having to be in the same project or the same folder structure."
"What could be improved in Worksoft Certify is its integration with other tools, for example, test management tools such as Jira, ALM, or any other test management tools. That integration is missing."
"Worksoft Certify's support team should respond more promptly when we are stuck with certain issues and looking for a solution."
"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."
"The technical support of the product is an area of concern where certain improvements are required."
OpenText UFT Developer is ranked 16th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. OpenText UFT Developer is rated 7.4, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT Developer writes "Integrates well, has LeanFT library, and good object detection ". 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". OpenText UFT Developer is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, OpenText Silk Test, froglogic Squish and Original Software TestDrive, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Panaya Test Dynamix. See our OpenText UFT Developer vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Functional 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.