Worksoft Certify Reviews

Our use cases are mainly from different domains for mobility solutions. It is also for HR and eCommerce.

We implemented more than 200 test cases for critically defined processes. 

It helps us understand the end-to-end scenario and how it can be divided into multiple subprocesses. Those sub processes can be used whenever required. Based on that, we design automation scripts, then reuse them wherever required.

The solution has enabled us to find defects since it is a test automation tool. However, irrespective of the tool used, we are testing to find defects. Thus, it has found defects in our projects.

Certify is a codeless automation tool with scripts that are easy to maintain. Since it doesn't use any coding language, a person (who is unaware of any language) can directly deploy just by training him/her on how the tool works. So, if a person is well aware of at least basic programming knowledge, it can then be deployed by providing basic training.

For SAP, we have many use cases. Certify is helping us to automate things, which is really awesome. The time spent to automate is less when compared with other tools.

Initially, there were challenges because there is a concept called XF definitions, where each application type, e.g., the vendor and workflow, has to provide these XF definitions. Last year, these XF definitions were not provided. However, whenever we face any issues, we have to raise a support case, then they update the XF definitions in our enrollment. This year, they improved that and have the last XF definitions for SAP Fiori updated as of February 2021.

For integration, projects are usually agile. The customers are looking for integration with CI/CD tools, like Jenkins, Jira, Xray, Zephyr, etc. There is no clear documentation on how to integrate Certify with these tools. Also, we didn't receive the required support when needed. Worksoft used to have webinars on this, but those webinars used to be on after the integration was established and how the integration works, not on how to create an integration.

They should come up with a solution on how to do the integration. Jenkins, Jira, and Certify should be the same in every company. The only thing required is the pipeline code required to integrate Jenkins, Jira, and Certify if they make it available for everyone. Also, if an expert team could help customers to integrate, then that would really help our customers a lot. 

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. 

We have been using the solution since May 2017.

The stability of the solution depends on how good the Configuration of your environment is. We haven't faced any issues w.r.t the stability and performance. So we can say the solution works good. 

We have increased the number of tests that we run based on customer requirements.

Sometimes, the support engineers will be unaware of the solution for which a support case has been raised. Their competency or knowledge on the tool could be improved. When calling them, they will see the problem but need a senior engineer who will not be available. We will then be forced to have a second meeting. Waiting for meetings and solutions can be really hard for us because we can't deliver to our customers.

But since last some moths, Customer Support has improved as they conduct bi-weekly follow-up meetings to address our pain areas and expedite the solution for the Support cases which are open.

Neutral

Compared to our previous solution, Worksoft Certify reduces our test maintenance work by 50%.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It took us a lot of effort and nerves to get it really running. I would also expect for the major CI/CD pipeline tools that these are somehow handled and covered.

The last upgrade of Certify happened in the month of March. That upgrade's time was around 30 minutes to one hour. There were also preparations needed because of internal policies for taking care of backups, which were a bit time-consuming.

There are separate server and database teams who have their own SLAs for deployment. It all depends on different project specifications. 

We have seen ROI from using Worksoft Certify. For example, in the mobility sector, we are frequently finding issues or defects that might have come into production if not properly tested. Some of them might cost some $10,000 if we had waited to solve them after they went to production.

Automation using Worksoft Certify has saved our testing times by 40% to 50%.

We got subscription model licenses three or four weeks ago. Now, we are setting up enrollment for other products of Worksoft. It is recommended that we should do our migration and upgrades in a test enrollment environment first, then move to a production environment. 

In general, they changed their license model. Before you had to buy licenses for each component, and now they changed it so you can buy a license and use it for nearly all their applications.

We also evaluated Tricentis Tosca. Their pricing includes all their training. This is free of cost to everyone, even users without a Tosca license. If Worksoft came up with something similar, I think that they would get more customers.

We haven't bought any projects or use cases to automate Salesforce.

Worksoft Process Capture is a tool that captures the user actions. Usually, the functional consultant knows the functionality that has to be automated. We then have to install the feature on his machine for him to use Process Capture. The challenge is, since they will be unaware of the tool, we first need to educate him how to use the tool. Because of this challenge, we aren't using Process Capture right now.

I would rate this solution as eight out of 10. We are very satisfied with the solution.

We are using the on-premise version and testing an eCommerce platform: SAP Hybris. This would take in all of our vaccine orders over the Internet. That is primarily what we are testing it on.

The autotesting piece has allowed us to complete testing more quickly, which helps us with our agile sprint. We are getting our releases out at the end of every four to six weeks, then pushing them out. Thus, we're delivering value in terms of our website being faster. The whole autotesting piece has helped us get there and deliver that. This has saved us time.

We are able to take about 1500 manual test cases, working with the Worksoft resources and system, and clobbered them down to 600 to 700 test cases. Our testing has gone from what would have been a course of six weeks down to a little over a week's worth of testing on the autotesting. This is possibly because our systems aren't all in sync at the moment, and we're still in the process of fine tuning this. When we finish fine tuning them, the testing may even be quicker.

For the tool, its valuable features are:

• The ability to build objects. E.g., if you have 50 test cases, but in those fifty test cases, they all had embedded a place order flow. You could build an object of place order, then all 50 of those test cases could use those steps in that object. This has been a real sharp feature, because you don't have to do those order steps 50 times like we used to do on our manual tests. You now have an object sitting out there where you can just reference the object, if you will. That has been a sharp feature.
• The general Capture tool, where you can walk through and mimic what you think is a test case, and the whole time it's capturing your steps. You can then use that to fine tune it and pull a test case out of it. We have it hooked up with Micro Focus ALM. This is where we have all of our test cases living, and it's sitting in that repository for us.

It is a pretty easy tool to use as far as automated testing tools go.

We went into this with the thought that we wanted to be able to hand this off to a business user, so the business user could develop their own test cases automatically through automation. We are not seeing that. We still have it assigned to an IT professional, someone who is certified in Certify. We constantly have to have that type of person around who can build these test cases for us. At the moment, there is not an automated testing tool out there that will allow a business user to develop their own test cases, and certainly not at the level that we want it to be it. So, this may not have been a realistic goal on our side to expect that one of our business people, who has their real job, could spend a couple hours here and there developing test cases on an automated testing tool, like Worksoft or any other.

It's a software package, and you have to know the software to be good at it. You have to have a certification in the tool to be able to be really good at it.

It would be great if our business testers could develop their own automated test cases. However, we either have to bring them up to a level of certification on the software or go hire somebody to do it. Worksoft, in essence, is the Mercedes-Benz of testing tools. If you want a Mercedes-Benz, you have to pay a bit more money. 

With every release you do, you have to go back and touch your old test cases and bring them up to speed, or develop new test cases. In the beginning, that is a challenge because you have to have someone who is certified in the tool to help you develop these test cases.

It is a little complex for someone who is not in the autotesting space to learn it. Like any software, you don't show up to use Oracle Database on day one and think you know it. You have to learn it, get certified in it, and understand it. This tool is similar in that sense. You have to have someone who knows the tool and knows how to use it. It's not something that your business users are gonna pick up, especially if they have a day job. It will take a long time for them to pick it up without full dedication and going to get certified.

We have had no issues with stability. It's been stable.

We haven't jumped yet to other systems. We are definitely looking into that. There should be no scalability issues.

We came to Worksoft with the hope of doing end-to-end testing. When Worksoft came in, we challenged them for a week to show us that it worked where you jump systems. They literally put people on our site for a week. It was a quick little RFP. We did see it work, so we know it works. We saw it jump back to our CARS system. Literally, we pulled Revitas CARS system up, and it logged into our CARS system, that's a web-based system as well. It started going through the steps that we needed to go through in CARS, then passed the status back to our eCommerce system. So, we know it works for us.

We know that the systems that we have involved will work with the end-to-end testing, but we haven't gone there yet. It's mostly on our side, not the software nor Worksoft. We are just doing other projects right now.

We currently have ten people (tops) using it in our organization. 

The technical support was pretty sharp, friendly, and responsive. There wasn't anything glaringly wrong with them.

We have a guy from Worksoft sitting onsite. If I have a problem, I talk to him first.

Long ago, we used HPE QuickTest Professional (UFT). The reason that we had to get off it, because it was liked by our business people, was when we went to Hybris in 2015, they didn't work together. So, we jumped ship at that point and went back to manual testing.

While we already had manual test cases, we wanted to move to autotesting because we are doing agile sprints. Our sprints were down somewhere between four to six weeks, depending on what is in that particular sprint and various conditions of trying to get that sprint out the door. We are trying to get down consistently to four weeks. Consequently, we had these test cases, which was up at around 1500 before, and also manual. We needed to get them to run in quicker, shorter periods. That's where autotesting came in.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. We had manual test cases already in place. Before you even got into the entire tool, you would have to do basically a cleansing of your manual test cases. We worked with Worksoft on an analysis period for about a month upfront, where they run through your test cases and make sure they understand what you're trying to test. Then, they try to map out a way forward as the best way to automate. Therefore, the gear up is the homework you do with them in that month before you even touch the tool.  That is the setup piece. 

The setup for us was wanting to know our test environments and putting together solid test cases. In our case, the account setup with customer emails, names, and addresses with all that testing data that you need. We spent that month getting the tests in good shape and all the prerequisites needed to run our tests lined up. Doing homework ahead of time then makes the autotesting run smoothly.

We are still deploying. We started with what we called a 'pilot'. We gave them around 300 manual test cases, which we got down to 141 test cases as part of our pilot. We ended up reskinning out website, and consequently, we had to go back and touch all 141 test cases. Some of them have now become irrelevant with the reskinning of our site. Therefore, we had to go back and reanalyze all of them, and find the ones which were still relevant, which were 90 to 95 percent of them. Then, we had to touch them up. We are in the process of doing that now, touching up our old test cases and building new ones on top of them. This took us a good six months, but we are starting to run regression tests now, though they are not formally in place.

We hired resources from Worksoft, but we do have our own testing groups. We have also hired some Worksoft certified people. We have been using Wipro for Certify testing and development, but our experience with them is not so good. 

Wipro was our testing vendor for manual test cases before we brought on Certify. My guess is that they did not want to lose our business because they told us that they knew how to work with autotest cases, and they didn't. They told us they knew Worksoft Certify, and they didn't. They were given a second chance and hired some Worksoft certified people, but it was a really big headache.

For deployment, we have two people from Worksoft and five or six Wipro people. The Worksoft people are far more productive, since they know the tool better than anyone, but they are more expensive as well. The Worksoft people are sharp. They notice things in our testing and point things out. Their understanding of test cases is off the charts. They picked up our systems very quickly. Wipro has been a bit more of a drag. It is because they're learning Worksoft Certify and don't really know the tool. We also have one or two business people involved who are not developing test cases, but they're project managing.

We are still building test cases, but we are running the testbed that we have, which is a few hundred test cases. However, we only need one person from Worksoft to maintain this.

What autotesting has helped us do is consolidate our test cases because our company departments were testing in their own individual silos, running their own test cases manually. Now, with autotesting, we have been able to eliminate duplication of test cases across those departmental 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.

Autotesting can runs overnight. It can run faster than someone doing it manually. The assumption is the system is not making any errors, but someone who is manually doing all the testing could miss something, get tired, etc. Be human, basically. Consequently, the autotesting eliminates some of those types of errors. Put all that together, and we are able to run autotesting and get our whole testing cycle done along with regression testing for an upcoming release, which is being done on these agile four to six-week sprints.

Overall testing has gone from six weeks down to pushing a button on a Friday. We may come in a couple days later, and the testing is done. At the moment, it takes less than a week for the testing, as opposed to six weeks in the past.

We haven't really seen the cost saving come in yet.

The price is in line with everyone else's in the market. They are not cheaper nor more expensive than anyone else who was in our RFP. 

There is a cost involved to doing it, but once you get over the initial cost, then you'll start reaping the benefits and seeing that testing is getting done more quickly and efficiently. We are still early on with it, but the expectation and what we're seeing is that we will start seeing some savings coming out on the back-end once we have this done. 

We looked into TCS and Cognizant.

There is an initial mountain to climb, where you have to get all your test cases in order and have the data ready. This will make it a much smoother setup when it comes to having Certify people coming in. I recommend hiring Certify people who really know the software. Once you get it humming, this is where you will see everything you are dreaming of, where you start a testbed one day and within a week your whole testbed is running, then you have figured out all the issues and can rerun it again. This is where you start seeing the benefits of autotesting.

We have the Capture tool, but I don't know the version that we have.

We are not doing web UI testing for modern applications, as we have SAP ERP, SAP Hybris, and Revitas CARS.

We get user stories from the DevOps teams, in conjunction with a recording they make with another Worksoft tool. Then we will investigate if it has already been automated and, if not, to automate the process which has been delivered to us.

This is all set up in a Citrix environment. We have SAP being used at the moment and we still have the old SAP ECC up and running. I'm not sure which part of this is cloud-based, but the Certify solution is installed on Citrix.

Because of the fact that we started just six months ago and we have a small team. But slowly but surely we are gaining more audience; more people are starting to get interested. That should lead us to be able to start implementing it the way it should be done. We have done some regression testing and, when doing so, we found real issues. So it has proven itself to be useful during regression testing at least.

We have definitely seen savings in testing time. Scripts are executed five or even 10 times faster than any one of us could do by hand. While we don't do so at the moment, we are going to start executing them in a lights-out environment. We will run tests during the night and get more numbers, execute more tests. That should also help us save time. We have to get the experience and the numbers for this, but I think it will save us a lot of time.

The biggest feature is the fact that it's codeless. It takes away the problem of finding people with the correct programming language, since there are multiple such languages. It saves time in introducing people to the solution because they don't need programming knowledge, they just need to be able to think logically. This makes it vastly usable by more people who are not even acquainted with IT at all.

Also, the solution's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications is pretty awesome. Like with every product there are some parts which can be improved, but overall it's great.

It's very easy to use and to install. You have to know, as a user, what your exact application is on the test; you need to know which object recognition files you need to use.

You use the tool to do your automated testing. As far as I know at this moment, it can do a lot of stuff. It's usable in DevOps, so with regards to packaged and non-packaged software, it's good.

I use Capture from within Certify. I also have a stand-alone capture that I have up and running. If you look at the whole cycle, it takes the user a lot of time to create the records. During the capture, the responsiveness of the system is really slow. But after that, when you send it to Analyze, the documentation is really easy. Just click the button and choose the format. Automate is the same. You just create automation and choose a file name. Then, when you need it, you just download it into Certify and start using it. We've been doing it for some time now.

The Capture feature helps find the actual processes to test for and to create end-to-end testing. We ask the users, when we are making the recordings, not only to enter the proper data but also to provide us with comments or LiveTouch images of messages that need to be recorded. They know, "Okay, when I see this message then it's up and running." Because they take the end-to-end as a whole in the recording, we can use that as process knowledge as well. So the process is, in fact, being captured in the Analyze software.

In terms of the solution's ability to build tests and reuse them, I would rate it at eight out of 10. We record it on one environment. We make it completely environment-agnostic, data driven. Once recorded, we can reuse it on every single environment in the development cycle, which is awesome.

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.

I have been using Worksoft Certify for six months now. I started using it in September of 2019.

We've had no Certified-related stability problems. We have issues with things like Execution Manager and Analyze. I'm not sure if those problems are infrastructure-related or due to the Worksoft setup, but with regards to Certify it's stable. Sometimes there is a crash, but I think it's more related to the fact we're doing a lot of complex stuff in a Citrix environment with low resources.

The solution hasn't enabled us to scale up testing yet. We're on the way forward, but because of some issues in our own architecture we are not able to execute those tests. But I know how the setup is working, and I think you can scale up really easily; just add more machines, add more users, and have a go.

When I started within the program itself, no one else was using it. There were two users on the Railnova team. At this moment, about 10 or 12 people are using but within a couple of months we will be around 50 users in total.

I would rate Worksoft's technical support somewhere between a six or seven out of 10. In two-thirds of the cases we get a proper technical support member who has the knowledge to help us with our problem. But at other times we get someone who doesn't really know what he or she is doing or doesn't really understand the issue.

Another big part of the grade I gave is the fact that when you are in contact with the call center, a lot of times there really is a lot of background noise. With the accent, it's already really tough for me in fact to understand them, and with the background noise the problem gets bigger. But I've had also a lot of support from the Germans and from all over the world. Most of them are really capable.

It's an easy setup. There are some small configuration settings and then you can have a go. It's all up to the user to do the updates on the definition files. That's also easily available to us.

I started using the software without hearing from Worksoft. I only had to do some courses on the Worksoft University web page they provide. I didn't have any real, proper training, and I was up and running within two or three weeks. And within two months, I was able to provide enough support to get multiple teams within our company up and running with Worksoft. It's really straightforward.

I wasn't part of it, but I believe the initial setup and further configurations took two or three months in total.

Because of the fact that it's also able to do orchestration and because of the fact that our company is moving from the old SAP towards SAP Fiori — they wanted to have the main focus on Fiori for the UI part, in conjunction with the orchestration which Worksoft is able to do — at first it was only UI-driven. But we will expand into more and more Worksoft uses.

The company used a Worksoft consultant for the deployment but I don't know her name.

We, as a company, have good contact with one of the Dutch Worksoft managers and he introduced the integrator to us, as that manager is from the United States. The consultant came over for a week to give us some training on a number of things because we are not only using Certify.

They were really happy with her. A lot of questions were answered, a lot of issues were resolved. She was able to contact Worksoft support really fast. They had a blast while she was here.

We haven't seen ROI yet because we are in start-up mode with Certify. At this time we are only investing in the solution. Hopefully, we will be able to have some insights into ROI within a half-year from now.

The licensing is yearly.

My advice would be to think outside of the box. If you've chosen to work with Worksoft, you have to embrace the product as a whole. You will find, as with any other product, that some things that don't operate the way you want them to or would have expected them to. But if you teach yourself to view your problems from different angles using the software, then you will be able to come up with the most brilliant solutions. You can do much more with a codeless tool than you might think upfront.

The biggest lesson I have learned using comes back to the codeless part. I view myself as a smart guy, but I don't have the proper coding language knowledge. I was working for myself over the course eight years, before working here, and oftentimes the jobs were really cool, but most of the time I had to do Python and this and that. That was always a struggle because sometimes, when you've learned a language but you're not using it for a year or two years and you want to go back, you have to start remembering it. So I was turned down for those jobs. In this case, and we can show the world that it can be done codeless, if you have the proper tools.

When I was first introduced to Worksoft and they told me it was codeless, I was really skeptical. I said, "I don't see that happening," because I had been doing this for quite a while and was used to doing some coding. But the tool convinced me otherwise, which is really nice.

Overall, it's capable of being used in modern technology environments. I have been using it for six months now and I still have a lot of learning to do. And as a company, we need to start using more of the Certify features, not only scripting and rerunning those scripts.

Most of the people who are using it right now in our company already have some testing experience, but it's our goal to have business and IT people use the Capture feature as part of the process for DevOps.

We don't do test maintenance at the moment. We started out with test automation. We had to set up a base for the DevOps teams and then support them from that point onwards. So we are slowly moving into the maintenance part. Because we have split the data from the script itself — everything is data-driven — so it should be fairly easy for us to make the necessary changes. I think execution is faster when compared to human hand movements. But for changing or maintenance, I don't know.

The solution hasn't enabled us to find more defects at the moment, because we have been focusing on "happy path" testing. We need to get to the end-point of the end-to-end testing. But I believe, and I'm rather positive about this, that if defects are entered into the system, given that our regression test set covers a big percentage of the complete solution, it should be able to find defects really fast. Faster than we can.

The Certify users within our company are all in scripting. We're developers. And because we are in a scrum team, we don't have different roles in our team for test automation. A lot of things are being delivered by DevOps the teams, which you can view as functional consultants. As for the deployment and maintenance, a lot of it is outsourced to one of our partners. We do have functional and technical maintenance or support. I'm the technical guy and then we have two functional guys as well.

We have done one POC (proof of concept) for Worksoft Certify, for one application, for one of our clients. The POC was successful, so we implemented the solution. We did it for a pharmaceutical product, a pharmaceutical domain.

What I found most valuable in Worksoft Certify is its identification feature. I also found its automation feature valuable.

What could be improved in Worksoft Certify is its integration with other tools, for example, test management tools such as Jira, ALM, or any other test management tools. That integration is missing.

I've used Worksoft Certify for two years, and I've used it in the last twelve months.

Worksoft Certify is a stable solution. I'm rating it a four out of five in terms of stability.

Worksoft Certify is scalable, and I'm giving its stability a rating of four out of five.

The technical support for Worksoft Certify was really impressive. It was really good. We needed to create new controls, and we got a good response from their team. On a scale of one to five, with one being the worst and five being the best, I'm rating them a five.

The initial setup for Worksoft Certify was very simple. On a scale of one to five, with five being the best and one being the worst, I'm giving the initial setup a five.

Deploying Worksoft Certify took just one hour after getting the license. The implementation was done by our in-house team.

I'm not aware of any licensing costs for Worksoft Certify.

Worksoft Certify is in hybrid mode in terms of deployment.

Currently, there are 50 users of Worksoft Certify in the company.

My rating for Worksoft Certify is ten out of ten.

We're using it to move manual tests over to automated tests to use on major programs and projects going on within the company. We are also moving to Dell EMC Embedded Boxes for an agile approach from a waterfall approach, and part of our new addition for 2019 after merging with a new company. Our role now is to automate as much as we can for usability.

We're doing mostly end-to-end testing scenarios. We use it on SAP and ServiceNow web services, along with SRM, CRM, and various applications.

We have an internal web portal, as well as an external. We did automation for it to do regression testing and build a test space.

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. 

The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version.

We had a lot of issues with the optics changing because they're dynamic. We just recently learned they are already worked on fixing it.

Another feature that they are also working on is being able to export processes from one project and upload it to another project. Therefore, we can change our both structures within Worksoft. We prefer to run and set it up based on business use for separate projects. It's exciting to know that this is coming. 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.

I would like the GUI to be more user-friendly and intuitive. E.g., previously, the buttons were gray. Now, they have color to them and are fun for the user. It also makes them easier to identify.

It is very stable. For example, we used it with ServiceNow. We did automation all last year for an upgrade. Once they did the upgrade, we ran a test after the upgrade and everything was successful.

It is very scalable.

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. However, we are able to reach out to our contacts, and they're able to expedite it, which has been very helpful.

Our upper management wanted to be able to do testing much quicker than what we're actually doing with the manual process. We had to research and find a tool which could provide value for the company.

We had QTP, which wasn't very user-friendly from a coding perspective. There was only a small group of people who could actually use the tool. With Worksoft, we were able to push it out to the business.

I set it up. I just followed the instructions. It was easily done.

We've saved over 80 percent in time savings.

Worksoft Certify was the only tool that we found in which you did not have to know coding or know how to script to create a test. It's more user-friendly, more intuitive, and we also have business users who are actually developing as we speak on major projects and programs.

Worksoft was able to come in on a PoC and actually do automation development on the fly. The previous vendors that I worked with for months, they never could do one test within our environment. Our environment is very complex. It has a lot of policies turned on and off, which is a challenge for a lot of vendors.

Give them a chance, because you won't regret it.

SAP HANA S/4 HCM, FI, BI, Payroll, SuccessFactors, Fiori, other web HTML interface applications.

Our company automates a lot of functional tests for SAP. The automated tests are included in larger integration tests of SAP transaction, workflows and end-to-end processes. Successful implementation and execution of Worksoft Certify tests has been faster than execution of the tests manually. With other tools, it was hard to get successful technical execution right quickly. Automation is not easy. Worksoft Certify makes it easier yet flexible enough to handle some of the most complex automation tasks. Every time steps are automated, test execution times are reduced and application problems are identified faster. Every time that the automated script runs (many times if developed early enough and applied with each change of the application being tested - in the current environment and leveraged in another environment), the investment of work made to develop the script is realized. The more times that the test is executed, the risk of problems going undiscovered is reduced. Testing time is shortened. Avoiding the tedious tasks of manual testing easily repeatable steps saves money.

Worksoft Certify provides the ability to develop test scripts with a low bar of entry among automation tools. It’s very simple to develop. However, great care must be taken to use the tool as intended, otherwise efficiencies and effort savings will not be realized. Like all automation projects, well-designed automation, with thoughtful planning and application, is necessary or you will unable to get back the return after spending the cost in investing time and effort with the tool.

Worksoft Certify provided outstanding feature support for SAP test automation which is unrivaled by other tools in the market. If implementing and need to automate SAP, first pilot the tool with a representative scenario, and then evaluate that retesting the scenario multiple times will ultimately provide compelling overall value for SAP test automation effort.

Worksoft Certify can better identify web test objects by providing libraries through its Extensibility framework. It has improved with it's latest version through Extensibility Tools support and additional test object attributes. Object identification is a necessary barrier for the technical execution of a test script, aside from the script's needs to verify business rules. Automation engineers must affirmatively answer the question: Is the application automatable?

If Worksoft Certify or any other test automation tool can get object identification down consistently and flexibly so that maintenance of web object identification (and hence the web test script) is easy and done with no execution problems, it will allow more scripts to be developed and applied faster with the human test automation staff resources on hand.

A good part of the technical test automation work is to make the script run and affect script changes when the application under test changes. When done right, the business part of automating the test application functions remains the same - leveraging your test investment.

Certify may not the best solution for your needs, but among the commercial and open source offerings in the automation tools space, it should rank very high. It is also a leader in rapid SAP test automation, and can be used as general all-purpose test automation tool for varied clients like PC, SAP, and especially Web.

Only one or two tools I have experienced could be suitable in place of Worksoft Certify. However those tools also carry their own set of disadvantages.

In terms of stability, Worksoft Certify is a polished and mature commercial offering. We rarely encounter problems with the tool. When we do, Worksoft is very responsive to the issue.

We also find the new features in version 11 of the tool to be innovative. The more friendly and fast UI, greater support for test object Extensibility support, Capture 2.0 functionality and global search are all market-driven features that benefit the bottom-line in creating and maintaining Worksoft Certify automation script assets. The improvements are welcomed and we look forward to even more such improvements to make Certify a top-tier competitor in the automation market.

In terms of scalability, we only have a few licenses. We manage and maintain the underlying database actively to avoid scalability issues. We are confident that Worksoft Certify can scale to fit our automation testing needs as we:

• Scale-up with many more automated tests of varying length
• Scale-out with unattended lights-out execution.

I would give technical support a rating of 8/10, 10 being the highest. Worksoft is very quick to respond and address customer problems identified with Certify.

My organization has been using Certify since 2007. We are committed and very happy with Worksoft. I picked up experience with Worksoft Certify when I joined my organization and leverage my existing automation skills to quickly become effective with the tool. I still use Selenium/Java/Python and was expert-level proficient several market leading enterprise QA automation tools.

The setup was done prior to my joining the organization. The existing work helps make my drop-in experience very smooth. It would be harder from the ground up, since there is a database and application server that needs to be installed and administered, and procedures and policies to define so that development is standardized (establishing naming conventions, specific ways to do things when there are multiple options available, etc.)

We implemented and developed in-house expertise. A vendor team would have accelerated and made adoption smoother.

We get at least a 2x return on investment (time, cost, labor) over manual efforts. When tests repeat execution the ROI can go higher. Tests often repeat when executed annually with planned annual system upgrades and additional time, labor and cost to maintain factored in. Including and reusing the tests in other testing activities such as sanity checks and regression cycles increases the overall ROI and investment value.

Conduct a proof of concept (POC) so that you understand what needs to be invested with Worksoft Certify. You will need to understand what sort of time you need to initially set aside to learn and apply the tool, and how that time can be leveraged to shorten continuing development of Worksoft Certify test scripts (processes) as facility in the tool increases.

• Someone needs to know to administer it.
• Someone needs to know how to develop the tests.
• Someone needs to develop a representative automated test script for a candidate application in your organization.
• That person also needs to execute the scripts and then report results of the scripts.

That script needs to execute several times. Now a comparison needs to be done with the time it takes to execute the multiple test runs against the same time it would take to do the same thing manually. In this way, you can now quantify your savings.

Now apply the need over the instances in your organization and compare that to the pricing and licensing to see how many instances of this effort would give you a return on your investment.

You will find that you will have many instances that would justify the price and licensing costs.

We evaluated QTP and Selenium. Worksoft Certify was chosen because of:

• The comprehensive coverage
• Extensive support with SAP
• Additional web test automation support
• Ability to develop tests fast and execute them reliably
• Technical support of the tool

The combination of all narrowed down our choice to Worksoft Certify. It was a great choice in 2007, and if evaluated today instead of 2007, it still would have to be Worksoft Certify since the importance of SAP support is priority and is significant over any of the other criteria and support provided by the other competitors.

Perform a pilot. Apply it to your app under a test with representative workflow. Understand the process of developing Worksoft Certify tests by doing it. Execute the develop tests multiple times. Can you live with developing the tests for Worksoft Certify? Is there value in the execution over multiple times quickly? Can you justify this effort over the cost of your current practices? If you can, then this incremental step can be leveraged and then take you further into more automation successes and favorable outcomes with Worksoft Certify.

Our organization usually tests on beta and production releases of Worksoft Certify so we are privileged to be able to work with the tool ahead of the general market. In that, we experience more issues that would not get out to production releases. Also even after release we work closely with Worksoft Certify support to identify and resolve Worksoft Certify functionality and may receive such priority support than a normal Worksoft Certify client would experience since we have such intimate technical knowledge, experience and relationship with Worksoft and the Worksoft Certify automation tool.

Because we are an active participant in a robust enterprise commercial process to help improve the stability of Worksoft Certify (staged releases to select customers to improve quality prior to some production release), I would say we’re contributing towards a good job of keeping up the stability of the automation tool by testing it first hand in our complex situation and environments and responding back with realistic and practical feedback encountered. We accomplish our organization's mission to develop and run diverse, varied and large amounts of Worksoft Certify processes automation and also assist Worksoft mission to develop and improve the Worksoft Certify automation software.

When speaking on stability, I refer to the stability of the Worksoft Certify software tool. Execution stability of the developed test scripts (Worksoft Certify processes) is a whole separate concern. Even so, Worksoft Certify also shines here in comparison with other tools. To really address this properly and clearly, you need to automate a small test scenario in an application that is to be tested and compare the tool script execution with another tool to see that Worksoft Certify achieves a high-level of repeatability and resiliency in script execution.

Even so, we do work with an occasional problem that comes out in production releases and experienced that the interaction and speed to which the problems are addressed and resolved by Worksoft Technical Support to be extremely satisfactory. I am not sure if this is representative of all of Worksoft’s clients, but we are very happy with their speed and service with which they handle our issues. This contrasts with the unsatisfactory paid subscription support experienced with commercial HP QTP/UFT and IBM Rational tools, and the lack of any support (other than searching the internet and relying on the user and development community) for open-source tools like Selenium and JMeter.

Without the interactive and engaging support, some of these problems would be extremely difficult to solve on our own. However Worksoft solutions were technical in nature beyond what a normal client user could identify and resolve on their own. Using the available and comprehensive technical support and educational services increases the likelihood of success and a positive outcome and benefit with Worksoft Certify. Successes with Worksoft Certify will come from meaningful collaboration to address automation issues rather than handling problems through independent or isolated effort (e.g. the problem could have been addressed with another customer and the resolution could have been worked out already. Worksoft support would be in the best position to know the possibility that a solution exists). 

This is typical of automation tools and the experience of other tools in the automation tool trade. The knowledge and experience is specific to the tools. As such, going to the source who has the most experience is the recommended strategy.

The primary use case would be for automating SAP. We did attempt to automate some non-SAP processes, but had mixed results. We do have some areas which are already using it for RPA-like use cases.

We use this solution mostly for end-to-end testing of SAP.

These are some cases where automation helped:

1. 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.
2. The second benefit would be production execution runs. This would be where we run test cases to do certain transactions, like mergers and acquisitions. Or with asset migrations, there are hundreds and hundreds of lines of assets, that we just need to set up, which can be done by Worksoft.

Codeless automation helps speed things up, versus previous automation tools. It is easier for people to automate.

First, product stability needs major improvements. Our projects get delayed and our executions fail because the product is not stable enough.  We hear consistent reports of performance issues, Execution Manager crashes, and so on.  What is not helping is Worksoft's ability to respond to issues. They do not have clear SLA's on when issues get closed.  We have had High criticality issues that were open for months.

Second, there are mixed results for non-SAP Automation.  We tried to do web UI testing on SAP Fiori and some internal applications, but the results were mixed. In some cases, we are able to automate, but it takes a very long time to do it. There are other cases where we totally couldn't do it or our customers back out somehow, because of the length of time or limitations of the technology. Also, Worksoft testability assessments take quite awhile.

The stability is very bad. We have a lot of projects, which are run by our service integrators offshore in India. There have been performance issues, system crashes, etc.

While we recovered from these, it does not give me confidence, because it is happening every week or two.

Scalability is still to be seen. We have seen a lot of performance issues, so I cannot say for now. From a technical standpoint, it seems relatively easy to scale and we have attempted to do so. However our developers report frequent performance issues and system crashes.  We have not made Automator's mode work after one year in Worksoft. So in theory, it works, but if these issues persist, it does not give me the confidence to scale out another 100 projects.

Our experience has not been good. There are no SLA's for issue resolution which is an issue for a large enterprise customer like us. For us, there needs to be a certain level of reliability and predictability when things go wrong. We are not getting this today because of lack of SLA's.

We used to do UFT, which was a pain to maintain. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. However, we noticed that there were a lot of issues with the configurations and we needed to work back with Worksoft support.

We mostly deployed it ourselves. We had some consulting services from Worksoft. They helped in the initial set up, especially with setting up the Best Practices.

Automating our manual processes has saved us 70 to 80 percent of manual effort.

We evaluated Worksoft vs Tricentis. Our criteria for evaluation:

• Cost
• Internal experience and experience of other customers
• The company as a strategic fit with us for the long-term. 

We applied percentages across these criteria, with cost having the highest percentage. Because of our company's profile which was majority SAP, we chose Worksoft. This is with full knowledge of Worksoft's technical limitations versus tools like Tosca.

Today, our team recently launched Selenium. This is because of technical limitations with Worksoft. 

Test automation is a must for any company. It is not just about the tool. It is about the processes, how you maintain it, run it, and how you respond if you have any issues. The toolset that you choose must support the entire ecosystem for the automation process. You need to have an engagement model, robust lifecycle, and sustainable executions.

We primarily use it for ERP testing. SAP is the primary application for the client, which we test using Worksoft.

We use Worksoft Certify for end-to-end testing of packaged applications. We have applications, like SAP, connecting with third-party applications, such as Oracle Transportation Management and other web applications. We have these type of use cases implemented and they are working pretty well.

We also use this solutions for web UI testing of modern applications.

With one of our top clients based in the Midwest, we have around 2500 automation scripts. These are not like unit level scripts, they are like big scripts. Previously, our development time for a medium complexity script was approximately three to five days. Now, it has come down to one and a half to two days. 

The turn around time for getting the automation tester familiarized with the tool is very quick, as it doesn't have any coding. It is fairly simple to understand.

The Capture 2.0 feature is very impressive. When creating documentation and automation, it is pretty quick, depending upon the size of the process you're trying to automate or capture. It has brought down the documentation and scripting time by at least 50 percent. It works in the background. It captures only the SAP window, it is not capturing their other work left in the emails or some confidential work that they have on the system. It's pretty seamless. Because it has security, I don't see it getting hacked. It's also pretty stable and works well.

We're really hopeful for the mobile testing in Worksoft Certify going forward. 

I would rate the stability as a seven out of ten. If there is a test script I'm running five times, I have apprehension that it might not be successful five times. The tool might be slow in +xcel or the tool will not be able to identify the same object/property. 

I have never seen the tool crash before.

It is scalable.

We use technical support quite a lot. I would rate them as an eight out of ten. They're pretty responsive, but it takes a long time to get issues resolved.

We usually replace tools, the Micro Focus UFT, with Worksoft Certify.

For a user to install it, the product can be complex.

Make sure you involve Worksoft while you do the installation. Follow their recommendations, which are very important, from framing of fuller structure designs or choosing the right capacity for the server. Their box of recommendations are definitely required.

We have cut maintenance testing time by 30 to 35 percent.

The solutions has saved us money. If we were doing everything manually, it would be two and a half times the cost.

We have a long partnership with Worksoft.

We integrated this solution with Jenkins and Micro Focus ALM for continuous testing. While Jenkins integration went pretty smoothly, Micro Focus ALM initially had hiccups.