Worksoft Certify Previous Solutions

Wayne Fisher
Global ERP Test Manager at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
It was all manual. For convenience, we used Micro Focus ALM for tracking our manual tests. We still use that as our central hub for our test documentation. We weren't using any test automation tools in IT. Within the organization, we have R&D groups that develop software for various systems and medical devices. Those teams are running tests and code. They are in automation test suites, and I was part of one of those teams before joining IT. However, in IT, before we started using Certify, we weren't using any test automation. Manual testing was costing us a huge amount of money. We did a double rollout of SAP. We split it over three deployments: * With deployment one, it was just one division in North America. We had over a 120 people doing manual testing for a period of about sixteen weeks. Add up the cost of that. * As we moved into deployment two, we were going to have to test new functionality and also regression test what we'd already booked. If you took the amount of testing that we'd done in deployment one, even if we weren't going to redo all of that, we're going to have to do 50 percent of that. It was going to be a huge manual effort and a sunk cost. We'd put all that money into manual testing and wouldn't have an asset. It would be money that we are basically suspending with no reuseability. It was a pretty easy decision to convince the team to move to automation because it would be an asset that we could reuse again. Over the last five years, we've shown that we've had a positive ROI on it. 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. View full review »
Manuel Hermoso Martinez
Senior Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
We started with manual testing and then we started the test-automation initiative. We started with our internal corporate tool and then, as I mentioned earlier, we figured out that we could not cover everything with that. At the end of 2015, we started to check the market. We did some PoCs and we decided to go forward with Worksoft Certify. There were a number of reasons we went with Worksoft Certify. The Worksoft team did a great job. They came to our headquarters and did the PoC, showing that the tool is suitable for our needs. They did another PoC with our operations colleagues who were running the regressions testing in Singapore. And then there were the technical requirements that we had. Worksoft Certify was able to cover all of them, some of which I have mentioned already: Being script-free, being fully integrated in Solution Manager, and being able to script in a modular way. And finally, the integration between our own internal tool and Worksoft Certify was also important. View full review »
Colin Hickman
Test Automation Engineer at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
I have used Winshuttle as well as DataLoad, which is an open-source and much more simplistic. Winshuttle is used more for something like an RPA function. Certify has a much deeper bench in terms of what it can actually do. Winshuttle is only functional, to my knowledge, with SAP applications because it's built on the scripting portion of SAP. Its focus isn't for testing, so it's not a good tool for testing. But it is more simplistic in the sense that it looks like a spreadsheet and the result is provided in the last column of what the status bar gave you. It is really designed for one Pcode at a time, in my opinion. Whereas with Certify, you can run a larger-scale test or function or even a larger-scale RPA function, compared to what Winshuttle can support. The complexity involved in that is much harder. It's something of Catch-22, but Certify does enable you to do much more. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Worksoft Certify. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
420,062 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Judy Zeman
Manager, QA at United Technologies
In the past, before automation, we could only do about 20 percent of the testing that we did on something like this. Now, we can broaden our scope, which is another advantage. Before, we would use an Excel spreadsheet. We would have all of the steps listed for each script. Somebody would go through and type: pass, pass, pass. They weren't even taking screenshots when I came along. We tried an HPE tool first (UFT), but it was an epic fail as a rollout. They brought in an outside consulting group to create the automation, and they pretty much did it in a vacuum. HPE UFT was hard to maintain and the user needed programming skills to make changes in it. It was taking so much time to maintain that we quit using it altogether and started doing things manually again. When I came onboard, I introduced Worksoft. View full review »
Heather Whitfield
IT Program Manager at Applied Materials
Our initial goal was regression testing. It was really expensive. It was throwaway work. We always had to outsource it. It overlapped other test cycles within a project. So, all the functional business folks were busy. It was something that if we left it up to the project resources, they didn't do a very good job with it. We would bring in manual testers almost literally off the street. They didn't know our processes. They ended up having to interact with our project resources anyway. It was just a mess. It was inefficient, clunky, expensive, and the quality was poor. We knew that we had a lot of SAP implementations coming up because we had acquired several new companies. So, we made the decision at that time that we needed to automate regression testing. That was our first initial goal, and we've hit that. During our last major SAP implementation project. Our regression coverage was at 90 percent which is pretty much the top you can ever really expect. Now, we are looking at other use cases. View full review »
Joe McIvor
SR. Business Process Partner, Commercial Operations at GSK at a pharma/biotech company with 10,001+ employees
Long ago, we used HPE QuickTest Professional (UFT). The reason that we had to get off it, because it was liked by our business people, was when we went to Hybris in 2015, they didn't work together. So, we jumped ship at that point and went back to manual testing. While we already had manual test cases, we wanted to move to autotesting because we are doing agile sprints. Our sprints were down somewhere between four to six weeks, depending on what is in that particular sprint and various conditions of trying to get that sprint out the door. We are trying to get down consistently to four weeks. Consequently, we had these test cases, which was up at around 1500 before, and also manual. We needed to get them to run in quicker, shorter periods. That's where autotesting came in. View full review »
Santhi George
Testing & Quality Assurance Manager at Johnson Matthey Plc
We have always been heavily reliant on manual testing and as a result, regression testing was not systematic and we could never think of implementing frequent weekly regression test cycles which was challenging. We decided to go ahead with automated testing and use Certify because: * Manual regression testing takes a lot of time and resourcing is always a challenge. * Regression testing not being systematic, the quality was very difficult to measure as we did not have a standard set of manual regression test scripts/sufficient documentation. * There was a delay in our time-to-market because all the testing was being done manually and there was no way we could accommodate frequent, weekly, regression test cycles. That meant high business risk, that we would have more defects in the production environment/ more associated costs. We had all these challenges and we started exploring options to mitigate these risks and automation was identified as the way forward, nearly two years ago. We evaluated various automation tools in the market. It was critical that we had to identify a strategic tool which would cater to our SAP and non-SAP application landscape. Worksoft Certify came in as a big winner ticking most of our requirements. View full review »
QA Developer II at a university with 10,001+ employees
My organization has been using Certify since 2007. We are committed and very happy with Worksoft. I picked up experience with Worksoft Certify when I joined my organization and leverage my existing automation skills to quickly become effective with the tool. I still use Selenium/Java/Python and was expert-level proficient several market leading enterprise QA automation tools. View full review »
Paul Pandian
Principal Consultant at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
As a partner, we help our customers to invest in the right tools and platform. So, we educate our customers to buy Worksoft Certify. We help them to build a business case or plan and do a joint PoC with Worksoft. We enable and empower our customers with enough details and help them to invest in the right automation tool for SAP, which is Worksoft Certify. Some of our customers do not have any tools in their landscape. In that case, it is easy to position Worksoft Certify. Other customers already have other automation tools in their landscape in which they are experiencing a lot of pain points with their automation tool. They invested a lot of money in their automation tools and framework, but they did not realize the benefits. Therefore, we help those customers move away from their existing tools to Worksoft Certify. If they decide to build on their existing tool and use Worksoft Certify, it's a very complicated decision. We need to build a very strong business case and we also need to help the customers to migrate the automation test suite. View full review »
Oliver Heil
VP Test and Quality Management at Deutche Telecom
We are forced to have efficiencies every year. We always get less budget and having to do more. So, we had to have some ideas, and our idea in 2017 was to increase automation. We had automation in place beforehand with eCut. However, in the end, we cut rates 10 to 15 percent. With Worksoft Certify, we had this campaign year with company codes up to 80 percent of the automation rate. This is much faster, and we are finding the defects earlier. In the end, you can save money and have better quality. In three months, we created 1000 scripts with Worksoft. When the three years before with eCut, we did 450 scripts. This is where we saw a difference. View full review »
QA Manager at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We were using Micro Focus UFT. It became completely unworkable for us. Our end-to-end processes were just too cumbersome for the tool to handle. It got worse and worse to the point where we had to say, "You know what? We have to change tools, this is not helping us." That's when we investigated Worksoft, and we were very pleased with how it worked. View full review »
SAP Manager at a logistics company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We were previously using Micro Focus UFT. The tool was good, and we did not have a lot of problems with it. The only problem was SAP changes a lot of things every time. The frequent changes were causing a lot of issues for us in terms of automation. We were able to automate many things, but the maintenance was a big problem for us. * You needed to have a person who had the coding knowledge to do it. * The frequent changes made the scripts useless. Then, we would have to come back and redo a lot of things. This is where we were looking for a product where we could have minimum maintenance that anybody can automate. This is the concept why we came into Worksoft. View full review »
Stan Butler
Principal Software Engineer at a retailer with 501-1,000 employees
We needed a first step in order to get into DevOps. The first step was being able to automate our smoke tests and regression tests. They are tests that we use to make sure that our SAP environments are viable and our point of sale system. We chose Worksoft because they were the only people who we could find which were capable of automating SAP right out-of-the-box. We needed a faster feedback loop. We have a third-party who develops our Hybris application for us and wanted to be able to hook into their Git repository, so when they push a new version, it would automatically deploy and run our smoke tests. Then, I can know within ten minutes if it works. View full review »
Global Testing Solution Lead at a consumer goods company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We used to do UFT, which was a pain to maintain. View full review »
Jesse Blakemore
Associate Manager Intelligent Testing at Accenture
Worksoft Certify's codeless scripting appeals along with the use of the Capture feature which helps in those initial phases. It also helps to translate the business requirements to the automation team. If there's a separate team, this is a little better too. There is recognition in the industry that automation capabilities, like Worksoft Certify, create value for companies, as things are only getting harder and larger. Companies are integrating systems to try to align their processes. View full review »
Automation Engineer at a pharma/biotech company with 1,001-5,000 employees
We had and still use QuickTest Professional from Micro Focus a little bit, but we were approached back in 2008 about getting into Worksoft Certify. We went with Worksoft Certify because of its ease of use. You don't have to know a scripting language, like with QuickTest Professional. Also, it has ease of maintenance. View full review »
Ywanda Jackson
Testing Lead at CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Our upper management wanted to be able to do testing much quicker than what we're actually doing with the manual process. We had to research and find a tool which could provide value for the company. We had QTP, which wasn't very user-friendly from a coding perspective. There was only a small group of people who could actually use the tool. With Worksoft, we were able to push it out to the business. View full review »
Euronica Olivier
Quality Assurance Manager at CHEP
Worksoft Certify was originally purchased for a product. We thought that it was not be used to its full extent, so we ran it through a PoC. Then, we decided that the product could work for us. View full review »
Senior Analyst at a consumer goods company with 10,001+ employees
We were using UFT before Worksoft and were not happy. UFT was too technical. We wanted to switch over to an easier tool, which was how we switched to Worksoft. View full review »
IT Automation Specialist at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
It is not practical to do manual testing anymore due to the volume of it. The amount of data variations is too great to test manually. If we were going to do it manually, we definitely would not have full coverage, where now we can get pretty close to full coverage on our tests. View full review »
Saurab Juneja
Automation Lead at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
We usually replace tools, the Micro Focus UFT, with Worksoft Certify. View full review »
Principal Consultant ERP at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Worksoft Certify has a very simple language. Our clients want to save on cost and ensure everyone who is manual testing knows it takes more effort. View full review »
SAP Configuration ERP II at a energy/utilities company with 5,001-10,000 employees
We previously did manually testing and used other tools. With Worksoft, we can more see the productivity and benefits that it provides. We can also do more testing, making easier for all the users. View full review »
Divya Nayak
Team Leader at SOAIS
Our customers come up with their requirements, then we come up with a PoC for them. If it works and their happy, they go ahead with it. I work with customers for new implementations. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Worksoft Certify. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2020.
420,062 professionals have used our research since 2012.