Worksoft Certify Reviews

Parameter-driven action steps (no programming): Able to interact with all application objects, as well as execute all logical, mathematical and text manipulations, with clearly defined parameter-driven action steps. These features, and the basic structure and framework, eliminate the confusion of building a framework for every test. The framework is inherent with Certify.

Certify is built on a database where all components are indexed for easy usability and reusability. This concept is difficult to manage with most other tools where tests and components of tests are very possibly on different servers, workstations, and folders.

Process and data RecordSet coupling feature: You can import lengthy spreadsheets and, with the framework of Certify, then extract only test data needed by attaching that one imported spreadsheet RecordSet to your executable process and, with just one action step in the process, write to the RecordSet, and build only the test data you need. This feature of a Certify process does automatically read and process the next row of data in the spreadsheet RecordSet without any programming. And the feature of a Write action will write all the variables associated with a RecordSet with just one write action step.

Point and click on application objects will automatically create an action step referencing the Object's Attributes and with a variety of actions automatically promoted for selection based on your application object type. This means minimal guess work on how to interact with an object.

Easy transition during execution between application development disciplines. Go to SAP, Web, Java, mainframe, or any discipline, all in the same test execution.

Easy interaction with DOS files during execution.

Of course, one of the benefits is, we are able to complete and maintain more automation.

The biggest benefit for me has been that, because the automation is basically 'event-driven-executable-documentation', it has been easy to enhance my lengthy end-to-end tests with restart capability.

It has also been easy to create automation as part of the test to find, or create data as part of the test execution. This has enabled us to instantly run a test again without the delay of manually finding and populating input RecordSet data. When you are on the clock to complete regression testing for production implementation, this is critical; that you don't have any delay to rerun.

Certify has been in perpetual improvement mode since it's inception.

Although I don't think it would be easy, being able to edit and change an action and logic flow in mid-test execution would be nice. Of course, with event-driven execution, this would be a bit of a reach.

I’m not an expert on compliers however I do have a background as an Assembler coder. I believe most applications now are event driven and most, if not all, automation tools are Interpretive, compiled at execution time. Certify is Interpretive as well as having only parameter driven source (no programming syntax). During execution, the processer is using the Interpretive version of each step, not the actual source created by the developer. Linking back to that original source and maintaining executable sync and content would be a stretch. This is not a restriction of Certify but of any Interpretive complied automation tool. Certify does have a feature to execute just portions of its source, during editing; however, I believe that is more manageable than interrupting execution to then edit the source.

I found it difficult to conjure up enhancements to this tool possibly because I have intimate experience with Certify and have always found success using one or more features. However, there is one enhancement request that might have merit. Allow a Variable to be used in the Label parameter of the Execute Process Action. Certify has an Action step ‘Execute Process’ that has a Parameter for ‘Process Name’ and a Parameter for ‘Label’. This Action allows you to execute a sub-Process and begin that execution at any Label in the sub-Process. The Parameter for ‘Process Name’ can be a Variable containing the name of a sub-Process which can be changed based on application and logical response during execution. However, the Parameter for Label cannot be a Variable. If it could, it would provide yet another nice structural feature of Certify.

I have been a test automation developer since about 1992, but with Worksoft Certify since Jan 2000, just over 17 years.

Because of the unique framework of Certify and the extensive object, math, text and logical parameter-driven actions, there is nothing I haven't been able to accomplish with Certify and all without traditional programming or scripting.

Of course, with experience, you learn that most of the stability issues are environmental; meaning, it is usually the environment that has had to be tweaked.

I have had once where a threshold has been reached in the database for updating a component, but that basically took a phone call.

Worksoft has done a good job keeping abreast with browsers and various different development disciplines. In addition, database size has never been an issue. In fact, as test automation requirements have grown, being built on a database has certainly enabled better management of the automation reservoir of tests, as well as all the components, discipline interfaces, requirements, results, users, security, etc.

Customer support is always cordial and helpful. There is an annual Certify User Conference, where you get to actually hear presentations from customer support, technical support, and experienced users. You can actually meet and speak with the members of technical support, engineering and management on any issues.

Early on, I needed math capability and literally within a half hour, I was sent an update to allow math using a specific Set action. Now Certify has extensive math, data math, and many other numeric and text manipulation actions. Of course, since Worksoft has grown, they have instituted a formal way of communicating, which has been very successful. I am able to report any issue with an immediate response that it is being forwarded to the appropriate engineer. If I have a high priority, I get immediate attention. That has happened once during a release update, which was addressed and handled within 24 hours, and it was caused by an in-house, user-developed map.

As mentioned, I evaluated Certify against a tool I was using, AutoTester. I was also using WinRunner, Rational Robot, and Seque's Silk at the time. Those names have changed over the years. However, it was immediately evident that none of them could compare even closely with the productivity I could get with Certify. Also, because there is no syntax involved with Certify, process and actions are more like executable documentation, making maintenance much easier.

Initial setup is pretty straightforward now. Early on, I used to write my own .bat files for the install. Now, they have good documentation and you can either use a .exe or .mis file for the install and upgrade. And, I have found that support is available immediately during any installs or upgrades.

Because I have been using Certify for so long, I do my own implementation, except for local DBA support for the database. However, for brand new implementations, Worksoft has an excellent professional team for just that purpose.

I can't give you any specific dollar amount on the fly but, for instance, I was at the Certify Users Conference in the fall of 2016 and the manager from AAA Southern California mentioned that the system I architected and developed for them while training two of there business analysts back in 2006 is still being used. The system is a mainframe system for applying for insurance with quite involved requirements.

ROI tends to be substantial because business analysts can be trained in just days to be effective with Certify. With almost all other tools, you need programming experience.

Cost is always based on need. I haven't found a vendor that could give me a straight answer unless I just wanted one or two copies of a software. And, of course, the more licences you need, the more cost reduction per seat you can get.

Before choosing this product, we evaluated other options, as mentioned. We were using more than one other tool at the time at Charles Schwab and we chose Certify for it's flexibility, quickness in development, and easier maintenance.

During an R&D project to find a better automation solution at Charles Schwab (a major investment company) in January 2000, I evaluated Worksoft Certify. At the time, I had about 10 years’ experience using popular test automation tools. For the evaluation, among the considerations, I measured Certify against an automation project I recently completed. I took an IBM mainframe mutual funds order entry system I had developed with a different tool that consisted of about 10,000 syntax instructions to complete. I had been perfecting this for about one year. I used this in my R&D evaluation as a comparison. With Certify, I developed the same automation features in about 1/3 of the time and which consisted of only about 450 Certify parameter-driven actions steps. It was clear, and obvious, that going forward, development would be easier, much faster, and that maintaining 450 Certify action steps would always be easier than maintaining 10,000 syntax instructions typical with other tools.

I have been using Worksoft Certify now for over 17 years. I have Certify automation developed for HTML web, .NET, Java, PDF, mainframe, and the most beneficial, SAP. I have many test automation processes for testing SAP, including testing end to end SAP Material Management from RFQs, PR, role approvals, PO, goods receipt, payment, return product, to inventory validation. Since 2004, I continue to primarily focus on SAP test automation with Certify for easier and faster development, and easier and faster maintenance.

Is it easy to learn? Think of the concept that, with other tools, you need to develop a framework and architecture to then develop your automation in. With Certify, it is already a development framework. It is built on a database with all the features for test automation. It’s not a programming solution (no programming) just action steps with parameters against application objects and action steps with parameters for math, logic and text manipulation, etc.

And, yes it is easy to use and easy to learn. In 2016, I went to Mexico for Yazaki, the company I consult for (a major automation supplier). I went there to train two business analysts on using Certify for developing test automation for several Yazaki Web business applications.

One of the biggest benefits: I was there for only two (2) weeks and completed training of two (2) business analysts that have no programming background. Since then, they have been pretty much developing with Certify on their own, almost one year now.

In my company, the solution is used for SAP automation.

The technical support of the product is an area of concern where certain improvements are required.

I have been using Worksoft Certify for more than three years.

I am satisfied with the tool's stability. There have been no issues with the product's stability.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

The tool's scalability features did meet my company's goals. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support was pretty good. There is a ticketing system and a call system to contact the product's support team.

I rate the technical support a six to seven out of ten.

Neutral

For automation purposes, my company works with multiple open-source tools, like Selenium and Java, along with a few license-based tools, like Worksoft Certify, QuickTest Professional, HP ALM, LoadRunner, IBM Rational Performance Tester, and OpenText Silk Test.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

There is a separate team in my company who has taken care of the product's deployment phase.

I chose the tool for my company since it suits the purpose for which I use it.

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.

The tool is good for dealing with end-to-end testing scenarios in our company, and in my organization, we use it for SAP testing.

The tool is useful for functional testing, and it did add some value to my company.

The tool is useful to automate business workflows. My company used the product to automate the test cases for whichever systems were under testing phases.

I used the low code automation functionalities provided by the product. I did not use the scriptless test automation feature of the tool.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use this solution mainly for SAP automation and for some web applications and we also use the reporting feature. I'm a quality assurance project manager.

I would recommend Worksoft mainly for SAP. It has all the in-built functionality and Worksoft is a wonderful tool. They've introduced the hook feature in this latest version and it's great. In general, the latest version is significantly better than the earlier ones. 

I would like the Worksoft web application to be more robust. For example, SRM has different modules in SAP. When we automate some of those objects in the web app, it's initially fine, but after a couple of executions, we need to again record that particular object or get Worksoft to identify that particular object again. It works well with the SAP R/3 or GUI but there are limitations with the web application and Worksoft needs to improve that area. In terms of additional features, we'd like to see the default report which we generally get after the execution is completed. There should be an option to customize reports according to our requirements. Tosca provides that feature but it's unavailable in Worksoft.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. When we're undergoing upgrades or version changes, some maintenance is required but it's quite easy. 

The solution is scalable. In my project, we have a team of around 100 people, 20 of whom are using Worksoft. We have a dedicated automation team. To date, we have automated more than 3,000 test cases using Worksoft.

Worksoft provides good technical support. They've helped us resolve issues numerous times. It's wonderful. 

Positive

We have introduced other tools like Tosca which we use as a codeless tool because it wasn't possible for us to automate through Worksoft. Where there are web application limitations in Worksoft, we switch to Tosca.

Because we have a dedicated team that takes care of deployment, it's a smooth process for us. 

I believe licensing costs are based on the number of users and licensing is on an annual basis. 

Worksoft is a good tool to start with as it is a codeless tool. There's no requirement for coding language knowledge. 

We rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We use it to do end-to-end testing for the business. After development has occurred and once we're into verifying that no regression has been broken, it's at that stage of testing that we deploy it.

We are a subsidiary of a larger company and we are focused on rolling it out, at the moment, to our larger company. With the tool's simplicity of use, where we are able to have a code review occurring, in that sense it will be useful in being able to roll it out to the greater company. We will be able to give it to the people who are experts in their areas, rather than trying to pass off test cases to one centralized location. It will be centralized automation and we'll just have one central COE.

Automation using the solution has saved testing time. I couldn't give you a number of hours or days because we're still in the beginning stages of trying to roll it out globally. We haven't been able to use the product and reuse automation. The whole point of automation is that the upfront cost to automate something is heavier and then, as you reuse it, it reduces the testing cycle. We're still investing in the earlier stages where perhaps we have spent equal parts right now, but we intend to see a reduction as we capture more and more.

Certify has also enabled us to find more defects. While I'm focused solely on automating and testing, so I don't have access to the defect count number, I know we have found defects, which tells me that we are finding defects that wouldn't have been found otherwise, or defects that wouldn't have been found as quickly.

• The dataset.
• The reusability.

It does allow for good reusability. When it's designed properly and utilized properly, we can put things in a way that allows for reusability, meaning a lot of reuse of VA01, if they're very similar flows, to keep it simple. And if we do have problems with a more complex flow, we'll make another version of VA01 that targets edge cases.

In terms of web UI testing, we've done very limited Fiori testing, but we have done Salesforce and a few others. Our experience is that when we get that stuff applied properly and working properly, it works very well. They're usually built well and if we do have problems with them we can get Worksoft to fix them. A lot of the times, if we're running on something that doesn't have an XF definition for it, by understanding how it's building objects, we are able to easily map objects fairly well and quickly.

The solution's ability to automate testing for packaged applications like SAP and Salesforce is related to when they do have that XF definition, but I do think it works very well. That's especially true for the SAP integration. That interface is very solid and objects are just about always discovered properly.

Since they updated the Capture feature to a more "Snagit" look and feel, it has become our primary tool. We've moved off of the old LiveTouch functionality. We will use it occasionally, but with Capture being built-in, it's easier for users to be trained on one tool. That tool has enough capability to be able to do both verifying the properties and recording the playback. It works well for us.

Looking at it as a product fully packaged, I would like to see more documentation or ease of use of the documentation. Sometimes documentation does exist but we have to search three different sites to find the proper way to do things or track down the technical document that explains certain fields. 

That, in turn, relates to the ease of use and how objects interact with each other. The application could lend itself to be simpler.

Another 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. We have to rebuild permissions occasionally.

The functionality is all there. I just think the way it's packaged can be confusing. We are successful and we can get things working the way they're intended to in Worksoft. It's just that sometimes finding how to do that, or where it is described, can be difficult.

I've been using Worksoft Certify for about the last year-and-a-half.

It's a pretty stable application. When it works, it works well, and it seems to work consistently. And when it doesn't work, it does not work — if that makes sense. When we see it functioning, we've got everything just right, it frequently seems to function solidly. And then, when we seem to have problems, it seems to not function at all, meaning tests will not run, or we cannot get a script to work in this or that particular way at all. But we've been able to work through all of our non-functioning issues through their support.

The solution will enable us to scale up our testing. With our focus being more on regression testing, it increases the testing of existing functionality first, and then we'll bring in that new functionality.

We are planning on rolling this out to more people, multiples of the number we have using it today. We think that it should be scalable but we haven't done it yet on that scale so we don't know for sure. But we do feel it will be scalable and that it will scale well.

Our extent of usage is pretty narrow at the moment. Approximately 10 people are using it right now and they are mainly automation engineers. There are a few directors using it to understand what the product is. People who we would consider to be "automation champions," who will help champion the product at our global headquarters, are being trained on it right now. They're not actually going to use the application, they're just going to understand it so they can help champion it and bring it on, full-scale, with user acceptance. 

Our main users in the future will be those information business analysts who know their respective products very well, the ones who are making the changes in targeted areas and who can easily reach out. They will be able to quickly test and record whatever they need to record for testing. We're looking at anywhere between 20 and 50 additional users within the next year, depending on how well user-acceptance goes, and expansion will continue from there.

I'll start with our positive experience. We always end up with some kind of resolution whenever we do submit something through support. 

There have been times though where their support has been very slow or difficult, where we end up with a level-one support for what feels like much longer than we should have a level-one for the issues we have. These are high-end issues that mean we can't function. That's been a frustration point for us. We've had to meet with Worksoft to talk about the support that we're getting.

As we start to build better in-house knowledge of some of the caveats of Worksoft though, that support has been needed less. That has made things a little better for us and that's why we focus heavily on training and having supporting documents on what we're doing.

I have used Winshuttle as well as DataLoad, which is an open-source and much more simplistic. Winshuttle is used more for something like an RPA function.

Certify has a much deeper bench in terms of what it can actually do. Winshuttle is only functional, to my knowledge, with SAP applications because it's built on the scripting portion of SAP. Its focus isn't for testing, so it's not a good tool for testing. But it is more simplistic in the sense that it looks like a spreadsheet and the result is provided in the last column of what the status bar gave you. It is really designed for one Pcode at a time, in my opinion. Whereas with Certify, you can run a larger-scale test or function or even a larger-scale RPA function, compared to what Winshuttle can support. The complexity involved in that is much harder. It's something of Catch-22, but Certify does enable you to do much more.

I can't speak to about the installation process, as we have a different person who manages installation. As far as setting up users goes, it's fairly simple within the application, once it's installed and functioning on the servers.

We started out with one model of being centralized and we're rotating to a decentralized model of sharing this out with more users and increasing usage. It's almost like we're in a second deployment of the product, and using more of the tools.

We're rolling it out to the specialists in each business area, on the information systems side. These are the people who are producing changes and who understand the changes and updates quite well. We'll have them write the scripts themselves, with our support as the center-of-excellence team. The idea is that they will be submitting the scripts that they've written back to us for code approval and then promotion to gold, to be able to be run regularly, as a script that's been validated. It should work well and be successful for them. We'll give them help with training, etc., in the Worksoft product itself. We're trying to focus on somebody becoming an application expert, for each application we're testing, and to be an application expert for the automation product, allowing them to function well enough within the Worksoft application.

The person who is responsible for installation is also responsible for maintenance of the solution. Like me, he is an automation engineer, but we have different focuses.

My advice would be to develop a very good training program to go with it. Also, understand how to build a good structure to allow for success and to limit exposure where people are editing things that they shouldn't be editing. You should also partner or work with other businesses that have used the solution successful. Build up industry contacts who can help you understand where they're going and where they're having problems, as well, with the model they're implementing.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Certify is that you can design it to be way more complex than you need to, and you need to be very careful, when you're designing the solution, to design it in a very simplistic manner. It's almost like code in that it enables you to do things that are very complex, but you need to be very cognizant that you shouldn't always do the most complex flow, and that you shouldn't overly design logic out of any one script. They should be relatively simple.

Regarding ease of use, once you understand how to use it you can use it very effectively. But at times it's difficult to understand what the application is doing, what you are actually editing, within the application. So at times, when it comes to certain objects, you might not realize you're editing another object, in a way, unless you've used the application and understand how it actually builds together. It is simple once you know what you're doing, once you understand how all the objects work together, but leading up to that it can be more complex. We overcome that with training, reference documents, and a lot of training documents. We did an intro training with our team just yesterday. We're rolling out more globally, so we're training and trying to have a center of excellence team that can help out with these concepts. For example, they can help design better training to understand, "Hey, when you're editing here, you're doing this." We're trying to do more targeted training to the things we do with our standards inside of Worksoft.

As far as the Capture documentation goes, for us, it's almost too detailed. We've actually implemented a custom solution for documenting, because we need something that's simple, almost like what users would experience for test cases for manual testing. We also designed our own solution for that, in part, because we utilize a lot of Selenium-style code and we need to be able to record results that are occurring in that application. We'll call Selenium and Worksoft and we need to have a consolidated results report. We don't utilize, and, just to be clear, we've never purchased, BPP (Business Process Procedure) so I don't know any of that functionality. But with our unique set up, it did not make sense to utilize those reports. The reporting that is built into Worksoft is good for development cycles, developing scripts, but we don't use it for result-reporting, in the sense of whether the test passed or failed. We've narrowed it down into a custom application.

While it does allow for good reusability, even if best practices are followed, at times it's hard to identify if you have the same components or processes being built. That can be hard to recognize. For example, there will be duplicate login scripts. The application doesn't seem to lend itself to being easy to manage for duplication of processes. We are trying to put workflows in place on our team to help identify duplication and to reduce it. We do intend to use Analyze as a way to help catch duplicate workflows.

We are working towards use of the solution for RPA testing, but our primary charter is to industrialize our testing cycle, and then we can move into something like that.

The primary use case is more on SAP for automating all our manual business work, as well as doing regression testing. We do end-to-end regression testing on SAP.

The product has worked very well with SAP.

Worksoft is used for manual processes that needed to be automated. This has helped us make our processes be faster and more efficient because there are no manual interruptions or errors.

For my processes, Worksoft makes them faster when creating scripts.

Capture 2.0 is a very good feature, on which we can record very easily and get documentation generation and testing acceleration. 

The product had some UI issues. In the next release I heard the UI issues will be lifted up (version 11), I am excited about it because the product will have more UI features. We are thinking of upgrading our existing Worksoft Certify from 9 to 11, when it is released, as this will be good for the company and help all our users.

The stability is pretty good what I have used sofar with SAP

The scalability is good.

The technical support is pretty good. If you open a ticket, they are able to answer it within 24 hours. They are able to support us.

We previously did manually testing and used other tools. With Worksoft, we can more see the productivity and benefits that it provides. We can also do more testing, making easier for all the users. 

We used the Worksoft for the deployment. They came and helped us. We have a good relationship with them.

Worksoft Certify is an investment. We see value in it more than the money. We see value in it because the user can look at different aspects of testing and what they can do.

This solution has enabled us to automate in order to tremendously save time. Only first time when you are recording and creating the script will you spend some time with it, the rest of the time, you are just executing. If we do one manual process, it could take approximately two hours. The same process using Worksoft probably takes ten minutes.

It help cut test maintenance time too. An eight hour manually project using Worksoft can be done in an hour.

Worksoft is good for SAP to do your automation and testing.

We are not using it for web UI testing.

Our eCommerce platform is Hybris. We run end-to-end tests where we place orders in Hybris, then we validate the order in ECC. Additionally, when an order is placed on Hybris, our QA environment has a lot of things which the SAP analysts have to prepare to get an order ready, so it doesn't clutter up the system, such as creating deliveries. Worksoft can do this for us as well.

Hybris is out most modern application. Our point of sale system is web-based, and it is in web form. We are on Azure. One of the things that we've been able to do is use Jenkins to put our Azure machines on business hours. We tell them to turn it off at 5 PM, then we tell them to turn it on at 7 AM. This has saved us about 62 percent of computer operations.

Prior to Worksoft, there were three different individuals within the company who worked collectively for about three years trying to automate just one of our smoke tests for our point of sale system. A lot of them got pretty far, but they weren't able to finish. However, with Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months.

The most valuable feature is having a no-code solution for automation, so our QA team and some of our business users can work on automation. Then, they don't have to be developers.

Most of our SAP analysts use LiveTouch. They use LiveTouch along with prebuilt components. Our QA team uses LiveTouch when they need to add things.

I would like to learn how to get better logs for their support team.

It is fairly stable. We have run into some intermittent bugs off and on that we can't explain. Since they are typical Window's stuff, you just kill them.

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.

Scalability is throttled in part by the system that you are testing. So, how much testing can your system handle? 

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.

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. The issues are not critical because they're not really blocking anything. They're just annoying.

We needed a first step in order to get into DevOps. The first step was being able to automate our smoke tests and regression tests. They are tests that we use to make sure that our SAP environments are viable and our point of sale system. We chose Worksoft because they were the only people who we could find which were capable of automating SAP right out-of-the-box.

We needed a faster feedback loop. We have a third-party who develops our Hybris application for us and wanted to be able to hook into their Git repository, so when they push a new version, it would automatically deploy and run our smoke tests. Then, I can know within ten minutes if it works.

The new environment was pretty straightforward to set up. There were four servers, and maybe a fifth one, if you wanted to have a separate server for automation testing.

Some of the integration depends on the subject matter expertise on your team. How well do they know ECC and their processes? Then teaching them how to use Certify to build out their processes. So, on a scale of one to ten, it is probably a seven if you are not familiar with some of the development principles, like looping. If you are not familiar with them, then it will become more difficult to build out processes needed. This is just understanding the methodology of doing certain things, not Worksoft specifically.

The IT department and I worked with a Worksoft deployment engineer because of all of our Worksoft infrastructure. She walked us through setting up the database in SQL and the MongoDB with Worksoft Analyze. It was a pleasant experience. Most of the issues that we ran into were because I did not know something.

Because we haven't built out our suite of tests yet, we haven't saved that much time. However, we know that it will allow us to save a lot of time and money, because once we are fully DevOps, we'll be able to spin up and spin down our systems on demand. Then, we will know within 30 minutes whether the system deployed successfully or not.

We did not evaluate any other vendors. We didn't find anything else that did what we wanted.

if you can use Azure or AWS for your Worksoft infrastructure, then use that for ease of deployment. Once you have your environment, then you can save it using Infrastructure as Code. Thus, if you needed to rebuild or repurpose it, you would be able to do it.

We haven't taken advantage of all the current functionality.

We hardly use the Capture 2.0 feature at all.

Worksoft Certify is an automation tool used for functional testing.

Worksoft Certify Mostly is an easy-to-learn tool and does not require any extensive training. It is easy to record and play this tool. Anybody can learn and start working on the solution. As per industry standards, Worksoft Certify is the first choice for SAP applications. It has a lot of built-in objects and repositories for SAP applications.

The solution's support could be improved. Worksoft Certify's support team should respond more promptly when we are stuck with certain issues and looking for a solution. They have been helpful so far, but quick conversations can happen if they function within the timelines.

Worksoft Certify has already come up with a new tool, a continuous testing manager for lights-out testing. It's good that they are working in those areas to develop new tools to support the lights-out testing. Worksoft Certify should also try to develop some solutions that can be more beneficial for non-SAP applications, like web-based automation or Excel-based automation. Worksoft Certify can be made more robust in those areas.

I have been using Worksoft Certify for four years.

I rate Worksoft Certify a seven out of ten for stability.

Worksoft Certify is a scalable solution. I rate Worksoft Certify a seven out of ten for scalability.

Worksoft Certify is priced higher than most tools. I rate Worksoft Certify an eight out of ten for pricing.

Different solutions are available per the client's needs, but I still recommend Worksoft Certify as the number one or number two choice for SAP-based applications. For EPC and SAP, Worksoft Certify would be the first go-to choice.

Overall, I rate Worksoft Certify an eight out of ten.

We bought the product in 2014, but did not have the right structure in place to use it properly. It wasn't until 2017 that we started to receive good value out of the product. Automation is now part of our strategy.

We use this solution for end-to-end testing of our packaged and SaaS applications. It is very much a part of our key strategy. We have it running end-to-end updates all the time.

We do web UI testing of SAP and ServiceNow. This was difficult in the beginning, as we had a homegrown product, and we had to do the proper object naming. With SAP, Worksoft does the object naming for us. This improved our website from 2014 until now. This is part of their process improvement.

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. This is essential for us.

It is not IT dependent. You can go to a business user, and say, "Just record what you're doing." They don't have to be very technical and can just do their job, then you can do the technical side or evaluation. This product helps us so much in capturing real business processes. This makes the overall process much easier.

A technical person thinks differently to a business person, and having to actually see what they do is the part that's so good for us. We can see the processes exactly as they are, not how we think they are. This makes a difference.

I would love to see more data mining modules. 

I want to see more stability in the Execution Manager.

There have been major improvements in stability since we started until now. So, it is becoming more stable. 

Also, we are being taught how to make it more stable, since stability is not just about the product. It is how you use the product. There are base principles that you have to keep on your data in the system. It is how you write the script and if you write the script to be sustainable. This will make it stable.

I love its scalability. I like records set that you can just add onto it. We are going into a new country every year and the ability to increase from test scripts makes the product so much simpler.

Their technical support works with us, which is good. Working with them has been a collaborative process.

Worksoft Certify was originally purchased for a product. We thought that it was not be used to its full extent, so we ran it through a PoC. Then, we decided that the product could work for us.

Ownership wasn't taken for the product during the initial setup, so it was a difficult process at first. Once ownership was taken, it wasn't that difficult.

We have seen ROI.

We have not looked at other vendors.

If you're looking at automation, it has to be part of your strategy. It's not something you can push bottom up. It's not something you can just do for a project. Automation is how we work. It is the thing of the future.

I haven't personally used the Capture 2.0 feature, but we've reviewed it. Worksoft has definitely made it simpler again by putting in comments and adding in some extra things. This has really helped, and our business users have been using it.