We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting 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."Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"Selenium Grid allows testing multiple platforms to insure functionality for most users."
"It has increased the speed of our regression testing."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"Certify's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications like SAP Fiori was good when we started and they developed it to be even better. We all know that web applications can change objects in DOM quite fast and it breaks tests. To counter it Certify has made object recognition more flexible and generic, so we don't have any troubles."
"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 tool is easy to use. It is a drag and drop Microsoft type of solution."
"What I found most valuable in Worksoft Certify is its identification feature. I also found its automation feature valuable."
"It is a huge improvement, as it recognizes complex general applications, where most tools won't recognize the objects within them."
"One of the bigger value-adds that we had was extracting data from our warning systems to be inputted into our new learning system."
"People focus on what they actually want to test and define it in a more detailed way. It shines a light on what they are testing, along with the speed and adaptability."
"Our business users are doing regression testing as their day job. This is an add-on to their daily work. With everything so pressured in the industry, automation takes the pressure of these users."
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"Capture 2.0 is not as useful when you get into more mature automation."
"Technical support's first response to us is usually late."
"Web UI testing was difficult in the beginning, as we had a homegrown product, and we had to do the proper object naming."
"Performance on the web UI part, especially with some of the more comprehensive Fiori features, like the complex tables that are being used, could be improved. In those cases we have noticed a lot of execution-time increase with regards to the Certify solution."
"The updates for SAP Fiori have been great, where previously we saw a lot of issues. A year ago, it used to fail miserably."
"Worksoft Certify's support team should respond more promptly when we are stuck with certain issues and looking for a solution."
"An area that I would like to see improved is how the permissions are applied. If you're applying permissions groups to a user, one of the options is to delete the group entirely and lose the entire permission group, rather than just deleting the permission from the user, which seems a little silly. In my opinion, that whole module of permissions is very confusing and lends itself to common errors."
"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."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools while Worksoft Certify is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". 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". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and UiPath Test Suite. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Functional 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.
