We performed a comparison between IBM DevOps Test UI 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."Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"It does allow for good reusability. When it's designed properly and utilized properly, we can put things in a way that allows for reusability, meaning a lot of reuse of VA01, if they're very similar flows, to keep it simple."
"Mostly in the area of project testing, the most immediate benefit is when you historically have manual testers do a certain job, and a full regression testing was previously done 100 percent manually. We have had cases where the release testing for an entire region would take around 12 weeks. With Worksoft, we are now down to two to three weeks. So, that is one use case where we have had success."
"A specific feature that I found to be the most valuable in the solution for our company's work processes stems from the fact that it is useful as a low-code automation tool."
"The most valuable features of Worksoft Certify are the way we can maintain the processes and sub-processes inside. We can immediately identify and replicate multiple objects in the application without having a major issue with it. We are able to do a lot of operations even with the solution being completely scriptless. That is a large advantage compared with other automation tools."
"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."
"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."
"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"As part of our weekly regression, we wanted to use Execution Manager. However, from 2017 until March 2021, Execution Manager was not working as expected in our enrollment. It could have been better. If Execution Manager had worked well, then we could have doubled our productivity. Unfortunately, it had problems."
"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."
"They have a scheduler in Execution Manager, but it is not customizable. Its UI needs a lot of improvement. The lights-out testing is a bit difficult with that particular tool, and it needs a lot of improvement. Of course, there are so many integration options with Worksoft for execution, but when it comes to Execution Manager, which is their own tool, there is a lot of scope for improvement."
"It is very easy to use, but there are some places where they need to improve their security. E.g., the BPP tool is just a URL, which does not ask you for a username and password. Anyone can login and can see it."
"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 technical support comes on, and says, "Oh, so-and-so link is here, go through that link, and make the modifications." I'm not comfortable in making those changes. I want to schedule a call, share my screen, and have them fix it for me."
"We ran into some issues with the version that we were on during the initial setup. We ran into a bug on one version, then they upgraded us to a new version, and we got hit with another bug. So, they had to put us in a beta. That was a little frustrating. However, besides the bugs that we ran into, the install was pretty straightforward."
"The problem with Worksoft Certify is that it's not always stable. It runs on a live platform that's constantly changing, so the test script needs to be adjusted every time, which is very painful."
IBM DevOps Test UI is ranked 22nd in Functional Testing Tools with 8 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. IBM DevOps Test UI is rated 7.2, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM DevOps Test UI writes "Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support". 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". IBM DevOps Test UI is most compared with Katalon Studio, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, HCL OneTest and OpenText UFT One, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and Apache JMeter. See our IBM DevOps Test UI 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.