We performed a comparison between UiPath Test Suite and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."UiPath's most valuable features are reusability and low-code aspects. It works across both desktop and web applications."
"We also don't develop test robots like typing codes; we program them with drag-and-drop features."
"Test Suite has multiple tools that are fully integrated. It has everything you need to record your test cases, generate your documentation, and integrate synthetic data with your Orchestrator. I like the integrated aspect of it. The biggest advantage of UiPath is that it not only tests but also integrates with all the other services to offer a complete package."
"It facilitates the delegation of control to multiple users and offers an efficient way to organize tasks using labels."
"It is a very scalable product."
"UiPath's tools are generally designed for business users, so they can be as simple or as complex as needed."
"It's effective at testing whatever automation we've built or making sure the automation we've built is working fine."
"We can generate our own workflow. In our case, it is a report on the PDF file. In the reporting category, we generally verify a couple of things and generate a lot of reports at the end of the day. It provides some useful details about the data captured from the PDF that we can put into an Excel file."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is its time saving. Once development is complete, the short time that it takes to execute a test is invaluable. It saves a number of dollars and man-hours."
"It is a huge improvement, as it recognizes complex general applications, where most tools won't recognize the objects within them."
"With autotesting, we have been able to eliminate duplication of test cases across those four areas. This has helped us knock down our number of test cases. Our test cases are also running more optimally. Therefore, it has very much helped in that sense, so we were able to eliminate a lot of test cases and get out of manual silos by running on autotesting, which is more efficient."
"During our yearly upgrades, we have now gotten them down to ten days or less. We have Worksoft run all our integration tests, where it used to take probably six weeks to do that manually."
"Provides all the in-built functionalities and is a wonderful tool."
"We love the Capture 2.0 feature. It seems to work very well."
"One big advantage of Worksoft Certify is its integration with SAP Solution Manager..."
"Our primary application is built on Windows, so we've faced no significant challenges. However, I think mobile automation is one area where the solution still needs some work."
"UiPath needs to improve its Test Manager feature. Defect management and reporting also need improvement."
"We'd like to see the solution integrate with more code or local frameworks."
"The product releases sometimes have issues."
"UiPath’s Test Suite manual testing doesn’t work for our organization based on how the QA Analysts do their manual testing and the artifacts that are needed for deployment."
"The reporting could be improved. Often, we need to email a report to higher management, we can directly get the report from there. Also, the error reporting could be better."
"Orchestrator is not easy to use or understand."
"I'd like the solution to be even more automated."
"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."
"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."
"When it is unstable, there will be times when a test that we are running in Certify will just stop, and it will say, "Aborted." There will be errors. There will be no explanation as to why it happens. It has now happened maybe one out of 20 times. When it happens, I just tell our QA team to stop Certify and restart it, hoping we don't see it again."
"Capture 2.0 is not as useful when you get into more mature automation."
"We can use it for the web application, but we are facing stability-related challenges. The properties are getting changed. For example, when I am performing any operation on the text box but the development team has done some changes, our Worksoft scripts are getting changed. This is the main challenge that we are facing while developing tests for the web application in Worksoft Certify, where any changes in the backend are indirectly impacting our scripts. For the web application, there is a scarcity of resources. Unlike an SAP application that doesn't require much experience, for the web application, you require experienced people."
"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."
"Worksoft Certify needs improvement on customization of reporting and how you report final outcomes."
"There are some other more complete tools than Worksoft Certify, such as Tricentis Tosca. It has a quicker way of taking in a customer's feedback with more efficiency. I do not see Worksoft Certify having a lot of progress over the years that we have used the tool in this area."
UiPath Test Suite is ranked 6th in Test Automation Tools with 17 reviews while Worksoft Certify is ranked 8th in Test Automation Tools with 64 reviews. UiPath Test Suite is rated 7.8, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of UiPath Test Suite writes "Can be used by non-developers, and saves us time, but the manual testing needs improvement". 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". UiPath Test Suite is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT One, SmartBear TestComplete, froglogic Squish and OpenText UFT Developer, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and SmartBear TestComplete. See our UiPath Test Suite vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Test Automation Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.