Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CrossBrowserTesting vs Worksoft Certify comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Worksoft Certify
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
66
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (9th), Test Automation Tools (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.7%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Worksoft Certify is 5.2%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Michael Hutchison - PeerSpot reviewer
Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems
The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default. Every time, I have to select the full screen, then restart its captures, which seems a waste of time and energy. This is, admittedly, a minor complaint.
Shailesh-Parkhe - PeerSpot reviewer
Powerful automation tool with a user-friendly interface, codeless automation, and adaptability to complex business processes, particularly in SAP environments
The tool itself is highly effective, especially when it comes to comprehensibility for newcomers. Even during the initial learning phase, I found it remarkably user-friendly. It facilitates quick onboarding and training of new resources. It offers features for building automation scripts, such as search and certify capture. A notable advantage is that it doesn't rely on other tools like Micro Focus UFT or Micro Focus ALM for script execution. Worksoft can run independently without the need for support from Microsoft Office, although the option to use it for maintaining data exists. The tool also includes debugging features and comprehensive reporting capabilities, generating PDF reports for easy analysis.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"The screen shot portal is essential for an easy way to run tests across hundreds of browsers and retrieve screenshots which then indicate success or failure."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"SmartBear has excellent, informative webinars, so keep an eye out for those."
"I can run a page through the screenshot tool, then send a URL with the results to my team."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."
"It's very different versus other tools in the past, which were not very modern. It easy for people to automate."
"We are mainly using it for the SAP application, and for the SAP application, if you don't have any experience with automation tools, after a few training sessions, you can easily automate the scripts. That's because no specific programming language is used. All resources that I have are specifically SAP resources. They are not from the automation background, but after gaining the knowledge, they are able to develop a script, or when there is any issue while doing regression testing, they are at least able to understand the issue, such as whether the issue is in the code or data."
"Worksoft has helped us position our company better because the product lets us show our value in terms of the benefits that we bring."
"We love the Capture 2.0 feature. It seems to work very well."
"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."
"The decoupling of the test scripts from the data and the application is a nice feature. When you are creating test scripts, for example, for a web application, you have to learn about Worksoft and how the controls of a screen can be interpreted by Worksoft. For that purpose, you create so-called maps. These maps are loosely coupled to your scripts, which means if the application is changed, the control will be changed from an identifier. You don't need to rework the entire script. You only need to do these adjustments in the map, and then you can automatically reuse the scripts. So, it is really a smart move to have the decoupling of scripts, maps, and data."
"Worksoft Certify supports multiple interfaces and applications like SAP, Web, or Silverlight Java, and Mainframe. It is easily integrated."
"Provides all the in-built functionalities and is a wonderful tool."
 

Cons

"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"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."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"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."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"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 would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products."
"Capture 2.0 is not as useful when you get into more mature automation."
"One feature that we have been asking for has been to treat tests as code and store the source code for tests in a configuration management tool. Right now, for version control of testing, it's all internally within the tool. If we have a test of a business process and want to revive that test, our methodology now is purely manual work. We go into the tool, create a copy of the existing test, and call the next one: v2. Now, we have two of them and the only way you can tell them apart is by its naming convention."
"The technical support has been good, but sometimes there are little delays. A lot of times when we need support, it's an emergency situation."
"With one of our applications where we do check-in, Worksoft is not able to identify the Java-based application. We raised the ticket, but we were unable to resolve this using Worksoft."
"Small changes in the HTML page design can impact the automation process, unlike SAP, where the script remains stable unless there is a functional change."
"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."
"Better automation capability would be helpful."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"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."
"I think they came out with a different type of licensing specifically for testing. Therefore, you don't have to use a more expensive user license, you can use an automation license. So potentially, if we had 100 use cases, we could spin up a 100 different machines, have them all run and be done in five minutes. That would be the goal, but I don't know if that would actually succeed or not."
"I can only judge based on the situation that we had around six years ago when we did the tool evaluation. Worksoft was not the cheapest, but it provided the value. For 25 concurrent licenses, we paid more than €400,000, so it was not cheap. In the end, if you see how much time you are saving and compare it with others, its price is okay. We had also compared its cost with the licensing costs for HP and Tricentis, and they were at another level. Now, as we have already booked the licenses, we only have to pay an annual maintenance fee, which is 70%, and that is okay."
"The initial investment is probably a little high. It was a little hard for me to sell, but it was a one-shot deal and that's why it's so high. All we are doing now is paying annual maintenance, which we don't have to do if we don't want upgrades, but we do."
"We saved $1.3 million using Worksoft Certify in 2017."
"The license cost is quite high. This might not be a consideration for a large company, but it will be for a small company. E.g., Tricentis (their competitor) offers certain exclusive use cases where a company can use it in a certain way, so this is another option that companies consider."
"We have seen that the initial Worksoft implementation has helped our customers reduce their testing cycle time by 50 percent. With further continuous improvement, we have seen cycle time reduced up to 75 percent. That is the level of productivity achieved using Worksoft Certify."
"We could use Certify to do robotic process automation, which is basically running a process on your correction system instead of your test system. Therefore, we may do that in the future."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
25%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Government
11%
Real Estate/Law Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Computer Software Company
10%
Retailer
10%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What do you like most about Worksoft Certify?
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.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
Kraft, Reliant Energy, Richemont, Applied Materials, Siemens PLM, Mosaic, Dow Corning, ebay, IBM, Accenture, Fortis BC, US Government, Southwest Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about CrossBrowserTesting vs. Worksoft Certify and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.