We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Worksoft Certify based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The main difference between the two solutions is that Worksoft Certify is expensive whereas Selenium HQ is open-source and completely free.
"I am impressed with the product's ability to catch content from website."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is it provides support for third-party tools, such as screenshots, and automates Windows-based applications."
"There are many useful features in Selenium that I like, and of the new features I particularly enjoy the Selenium Grid. With this, we can run many test cases in one go, and in one suite we can extract multiple results."
"The solution is very easy to use. Once you learn how to do things, it becomes very intuitive and simple."
"It is programming language agnostic, you can write tests in most currently used languages."
"The solution is very flexible; there are different ways of using it. It's open-source and has a lot of support on offer."
"Since Selenium HQ has multiple plug-ins, we can use it with multiple tools and multiple languages."
"It's script-free, which is really important for our end users because we are usually dealing with colleagues who are not developers and who do not always have the technical background of developing and scripting. It's very useful that there is a nice UI and the tool is script-free."
"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."
"It is a pretty easy tool to use as far as automated testing tools go."
"It's module based and it's giving functionality."
"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."
"Worksoft Certify Mostly is an easy-to-learn tool and does not require any extensive training."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"Improvement means for us that we have to be better in quality. Due to automation, you can run every automated test case twice a week. If you do it manually, you do it once per release. This is a quality improvement."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"We do not have enough resources or enough people to employ and hire. So, I'm hiring whoever I find, and they don't always have enough technical knowledge to operate Selenium."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"I don't have that much experience with it, but I know that Selenium is more used for websites. It is not for testing desktop applications, which is a downside of it. It can support desktop applications more."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"Katalon has built a UI on top of Selenium to make it more user-friendly, as well as repository options and the ability to create repositories for objects, among other things. It would be helpful if this type of information could be included in the Selenium tool itself, so people wouldn't have to do filing testing."
"The solution's UI path needs to be modernized."
"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."
"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."
"Our interactions with technical support has not been the best always and there is room for improvement especially with respect to the time taken to respond to cases. However, with the right contacts and reasonable escalations we have always managed to get quick attention on our cases."
"For the couple of the issues that we were really scratching our heads over, we were in communication with the technical support several times, but they never got back to us."
"It is poor for a web based application."
"The updates for SAP Fiori have been great, where previously we saw a lot of issues. A year ago, it used to fail miserably."
"There was a change to Capture 2.0. In the end, there have been some challenges with the newer version. Therefore, the company testers, the local ones, do not want to use Capture 2.0."
"Worksoft Certify needs improvement on customization of reporting and how you report final outcomes."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". 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". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Telerik Test Studio, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, UiPath Test Suite and Panaya Test Dynamix. See our Selenium HQ 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.
