The solutions we evaluated were all Java-based and they all took skills that we didn't have and we would have had to hire people to use them, or we would have had to train people. The people those solutions might be good for would be developers, but I'm not going to get a budget for a bunch of developers on a test team. And developers don't want to test; developers want to develop. I wouldn't even be able to hang onto these people. That's what failed with our initial attempt. We brought in programmers, they came up with a test, and nobody could maintain them afterwards. It was an investment that we threw out.

We evaluated Micro Focus UFT, Selenium, SAP CBTA, and Worksoft.

My main focus was an SAP automation solution, and Worksoft was really good in that space. They were an SAP partner, but I recognized that I wanted something to be more scalable across other applications, and that ruled out the SAP solution. We liked the price point of Selenium and some of the open source tools, but there are risks to something like that. You don't have as much control, and there are always security concerns. Our internal teams weren't excited about that, as they are not great with SAP. We already had a lot of pain points with UFT. It took way too long to develop processes with UFT. It required more coding.

We looked at Panaya, but Panaya is not a desk automation tool. We are using Panaya for some of our impact analysis.

We did try with Selenium and many other vendors. A lot of other tools have a small test director that we tried. The ease in using this tool is very good because our business team can go in and use it. So, anybody can record for me and capture. Then, we have a very small team of automation testers who can convert the information immediately into a reusable component, parameterize it, and do the records sets. In that way, with a very small set of test automated guys, we can do much more.

We also looked at HPE UFT (the HPE automated testing tools) and SAP TAO (SAP's own internal test automation). The reason we pretty quickly went with Worksoft was primarily the responsiveness of the team. The evaluation happened between deployment one and deployment two.

When implementing SAP, we had IBM as our system integrator. We went to both SAP and HPE asked them to show us what they could do for test automation. We also looked around and found Certify as a third candidate. The response from the Worksoft team was far higher than the other two. IBM wasn't able to produce sufficient expertise to demonstrate the SAP test automation tool and same with HPE. I also didn't have a good response from them. We felt, " If this is the level of support that we were getting during the sales cycle, how will it be after the sale has occurred and we have to go to them for support?" Whereas, Worksoft was very responsive. They sent people onsite. They did a proof of concept using our system and data. There was a pretty clear cut night and day difference in teams and companies involved. I didn't get a chance to evaluate the technology of the SAP or HPE solution because their sales teams weren't responsive.

We have a dedicated team of what we call test developers who are specialists in this application. While I don't use the application myself, but they're pretty productive with it. We have a team using Certify for SAP Test Automation and a team using Selenium for web application development. The SAP test development is more efficient than the web test development. For a similar sized test development project where they have to test and develop five automated tests of a certain method, we can turn them around in SAP faster than we can turn them around in Selenium.

Now, it might be Selenium has a higher learning curve than Certify. Or, it is easier for test developers to get good at developing test units using Certify. Selenium is far more technical. Of the two tools that we use, Worksoft is more user-friendly than Selenium.

It is integrated with SAP. It's one of the best tool to be used if you want to automize your testing for SAP. No other tool is as good as Worksoft Certify.

I have evaluated other tools, but I find Certify really tops them. Most of them are using the command line-based tools. With some of them, you need a expert who knows how to do programming. For Worksoft Certify, you don't need programming skills. For the SAP GUI, I haven't found another tool that can work as efficiently with SAP as Worksoft Certify does.

Tricentis Tosca is a strong competitor. Worksoft Certify is more expensive than Tricentis Tosca. The solution that we use depends on a client's choice. 

Our customers evaluate three or four major products along with Worksoft: Micro Focus UFT, Tricentis Tosca, Testimony from Basis Technologies, and then some of open source tools. Some of the customers evaluate all the tools, and some of the customers pick one of the other tools along with Worksoft Certify to make their decision.

There are a lot of tools available in the market. However, if you take any automation project, the lead time to implement an automation solution is typically, painfully longer. It may not give the right return on investments. 

We could have gone with any commercial tools available in the market or open source tools, but going with Worksoft gave us a few advantages. We were able to deliver and implement automation two and a half times faster than any other automation tools. Then, if you look at the total cost of effort to build, maintain, and run the scripts in the customer landscape, it is phenomenally low compared to other tools in the market.

Worksoft gives you return on investment faster than its competitors. It will make your QA organization more agile and nimble.

We looked at quite a few vendors and automation tools in the market. We chose Worksoft because of the ease of use and mentorship support they provide in making sure we were successful.

SAP TAO and Micro Focus UFT.

It was critical to identify a strategic tool which would cater to the testing requirements across our SAP and non-SAP application (including web based apps like Web Dynpro) landscape. Worksoft Certify came in as a big winner ticking most of our requirements.

I chose the tool for my company since it suits the purpose for which I use it.

We have done a few comparisons and we're continuously looking at the market to see if there is anything better, cheaper and more suitable. Market is changing a lot, RPA solutions expanding to test automation market, Robot Framework ecosystem is thriving and some other established vendors are operating. We're keeping an eye on it for evaluation. So far, cost-wise, feature-wise, and in terms of the learning curve or skills requirements, we are good with Certify. From our comparisons now, we would pick Certify again.

We didn't look into any alternatives.

We have not looked at other vendors.

We evaluated Micro Focus QuickTest Professional (QTP).

We evaluated QTP and Selenium. Worksoft Certify was chosen because of:

• The comprehensive coverage
• Extensive support with SAP
• Additional web test automation support
• Ability to develop tests fast and execute them reliably
• Technical support of the tool

The combination of all narrowed down our choice to Worksoft Certify. It was a great choice in 2007, and if evaluated today instead of 2007, it still would have to be Worksoft Certify since the importance of SAP support is priority and is significant over any of the other criteria and support provided by the other competitors.

We did an RFP in 2016 and 2017. We found that Worksoft is easier to use because our business experts can do the tests. We didn't have to have IT experts, like with eCut.

We also evaluated Tricentis Tosca. Their pricing includes all their training. This is free of cost to everyone, even users without a Tosca license. If Worksoft came up with something similar, I think that they would get more customers.

I have evaluated lots of other solutions.

Worksoft Certify was the only tool that we found in which you did not have to know coding or know how to script to create a test. It's more user-friendly, more intuitive, and we also have business users who are actually developing as we speak on major projects and programs.

Worksoft was able to come in on a PoC and actually do automation development on the fly. The previous vendors that I worked with for months, they never could do one test within our environment. Our environment is very complex. It has a lot of policies turned on and off, which is a challenge for a lot of vendors.

We did not evaluate any other vendors. We didn't find anything else that did what we wanted.

We evaluated Worksoft vs Tricentis. Our criteria for evaluation:

• Cost
• Internal experience and experience of other customers
• The company as a strategic fit with us for the long-term. 

We applied percentages across these criteria, with cost having the highest percentage. Because of our company's profile which was majority SAP, we chose Worksoft. This is with full knowledge of Worksoft's technical limitations versus tools like Tosca.

Today, our team recently launched Selenium. This is because of technical limitations with Worksoft. 

This solution came to us as part of IBM ELA Worldwide. The company had ELA at that time and told us that this was part of our ELA, "Why don't you go try it out?" We did a PoC, and we liked it. Without a second thought, we signed up for it.

We do trainings on a needed basis so we understand the demand of various tools in the market. We strongly believe while Worksoft is a good tool it is losing its potential a bit to other tools in the market. The demand for training has gone down in the last two years.

In 2008, we evaluated SAP TAO. The person who came in to do the proof on concept wasn't able to get the test scenario working at all. He had three and a half days to do it, and he couldn't do it. When Worksoft came in, they had the same length of time and were able to get that one plus another one partially working in the same time frame.

At the moment we are rolling out Execution Manager.

At the time we decided to bring in Worksoft Certify, we looked into two other tools. The key difference was that Worksoft was script-free. That was not the case for other tools. And the full integration to Solution Manager was one of the key differentiators between the tools.

We did do a PoC and compared it with other products from SAP and HPE.

Before choosing this product, we evaluated other options, as mentioned. We were using more than one other tool at the time at Charles Schwab and we chose Certify for it's flexibility, quickness in development, and easier maintenance.

We looked into TCS and Cognizant.

We have a long partnership with Worksoft.

Our customers often evaluate Tricentis along with Worksoft.

From an Accenture point of view, our customer chose Worksoft because of our alliance with them. It's the capability that we've built and the knowledge base that we bring along with that.

We evaluated an SAP escalator from SAP in UFT.

We do an evaluation of the tools which are best for automation with SAP, and Worksoft covers more SAP use cases.

Worksoft is our preferrred partner, but we do work with other testing tools.

Competitors include Tricentis and Micro Focus Quality Center.

Before choosing this product, we did not evaluate other options.

We evaluated Tricentis and Selenium.

No.

I have been comparing other tools, such as Micro Focus UFT One, to see whether they are feasible for our purpose.

It was an organizational decision and we were replacing QTP.