Worksoft Certify Reviews

I primarily used the platform for SAP projects.

From a functional perspective, I found all the solution features quite useful. Excel automation was a valuable feature that was much more efficient than working with record sets. Using it helped significantly reduce time when dealing with large datasets. 

Another standout feature is the ease with which a non-coding professional can be trained to use it for automation. The codeless automation feature, especially for SAP applications, made the process simpler and more efficient.

The product could be improved in terms of web applications. One challenge I faced was that web application parameters often change in the back end, affecting the automation scripts. Small changes in the HTML page design can impact the automation process, unlike SAP, where the script remains stable unless there is a functional change. Therefore, maintaining automation for web applications requires more effort.

If my script is long and involves a large data set with over a hundred entries, it can slow down or become inefficient. I suggest improving how the platform handles large datasets during lengthy scripts.

I have worked with Worksoft Certify for over five years.

Worksoft Certify has good integration capabilities with third-party tools. For instance, I successfully integrated it with Excel and PDF. Although I haven't used the mobile features, it supports desktop applications well. In my projects, especially SAP, it handled invoicing and PDF verifications seamlessly. 

It is a codeless automation tool. It allows even freshers to be trained and become productive within a month. Regarding project cost, having a senior resource oversee the automation is feasible, while junior resources can handle the bulk of the work. Although it is a licensed product, it significantly saves time and effort, especially with its internal tools that allow testers to capture and automate steps efficiently.

Overall, I rate it a six out of ten. 

We used the Worksoft director access to test automation.

The tool is easy to use. It is a drag and drop Microsoft type of solution.

Worksoft Certify needs improvement on customization of reporting and how you report final outcomes. It needs more customization.

I have been using Worksoft Certify for  years.

The solution is very stable.

Worksoft Certify is scalable. However, if the final output were more customizable, it would be even more scalable.

Worksoft Certify's technical support is a 3 out of 5.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The implementation depends on the client's business. Overall, it is not very complex. It is simple and easy to implement. There is no need for a third party integrator.

We have an annual license for this solution. The product is very expensive.

Choosing this solution is entirely dependent on the specific business requirements, the time required and the budget available. If you are looking for an easy to implement scalable solution, Worksoft Certify is recommended if it works within your budget.

I would rate Worksoft Certify an 8 out of 10.

We have an SAP application, and for the automation of this SAP application, we are using Worksoft Certify. This project is in the healthcare domain. I get the requirements from the client. They tell me about the new changes that are going to happen in the system, and based on that, we do the automation. The client tells me about the scripts and new features in the application, and I create an estimation plan, which depends on the size and the complexity of the scripts and features, and share it with the client. We do the development activities accordingly.

We have two teams. Being an automation team, we are not very much on the functional side. So, we need to take some support from the functionality team. for test case writing. They are usually able to give us steps in Excel or something like that, and we are able to start with that. Otherwise, we have some sessions with the client or the functional team to discuss any issues or doubts we have. We also need data for developing the script. We get the required information about the data, such as if data is consumable and how to find new data, from the client or the functional team. Once the automation is done, we inform the client, and we are ready for the sign-up for the first set of the script. They do a functional review, and after they okay it, we do the final sign-off. We then move our scripts from the local sandbox folder to a production folder created in Worksoft Certify. We then use the script for regression.

In terms of its deployment, they provide the updates, and we install them on our VPS.

We are mainly using it for the SAP application, and for the SAP application, if you don't have any experience with automation tools, after a few training sessions, you can easily automate the scripts. That's because no specific programming language is used. All resources that I have are specifically SAP resources. They are not from the automation background, but after gaining the knowledge, they are able to develop a script, or when there is any issue while doing regression testing, they are at least able to understand the issue, such as whether the issue is in the code or data. 

We can use it for the web application, but we are facing stability-related challenges. The properties are getting changed. For example, when I am performing any operation on the text box but the development team has done some changes, our Worksoft scripts are getting changed. This is the main challenge that we are facing while developing tests for the web application in Worksoft Certify, where any changes in the backend are indirectly impacting our scripts. For the web application, there is a scarcity of resources. Unlike an SAP application that doesn't require much experience, for the web application, you require experienced people.

We also use XF definitions for the web application, but we can't create them on our own. So, we need to take support from the Worksoft team, and we have a dependency on them.

I have been working with this tool for the last five years.

It is completely stable for our SAP application. There is no issue. Once you have developed a script, you don't need to do any changes.

We are using it on quite a large scale. If we have a requirement for the new development, we have to use Certify. My project involves maintenance and new development. In the maintenance phase, we have regression testing. We have created a batch file, and when we are doing the regression testing, we are executing this batch file. So, we are using it for day-to-day activities. We are also using another tool from Worksoft called Worksoft Execution Manager.

The number of users working on this solution varies based on the project timeline and the number of scripts. For example, if the client's requirements need to be delivered in a very short period of time, then instead of four resources, I will take eight resources.

For any issues, we have to go to the Certify support team. They have a customer portal, and you just need to raise a request on the portal. Based on the priority, you get a response from them. Initially, they provide the solution through the ticket, but if the solution doesn't work, they also schedule a call. If the issue is not resolved in one call, they schedule more calls till they have resolved our issue.

I have used UFT in my previous company. Companies that have an SAP application or SAP Fiori prefer Worksoft Certify. For my current client, initially, we were using UFT, but because any non-automation resource can do automation in Worksoft Certify, we brought Worksoft Certify. Now, instead of UFT, we are developing everything in the Worksoft Certify. 

I am also familiar with Selenium. For SAP applications, Worksoft Certify is a very good tool. With UFT and Selenium, you need to create a framework, which is not required with Worksoft Certify. You can just go and develop an automation script. 

So far, I have used Worksoft Certify for the SAP application, the mainframe application, and the web application. For the SAP application, it is working well, but for the web application, instead of Worksoft Certify, it is better to go for Selenium. With the web application, we have the issue of values getting changed when developers make any change in the backend, and we also have a dependency on Worksoft for XF definitions. So, Selenium would be a better solution for web applications.

I don't have much idea about the pricing, but it is a licensed tool, and it is somewhat costly.

If you are considering this tool for your project or company, the Worksoft sales team would connect with you and explain what are the things that you need to perform. Initially, they give a demo, and after that, they discuss the licensing, etc.

It can be easily used by our non-automation resources with some training, but your team should ideally also have experienced people to be able to deliver within your deadline. For some of the development, you can also hire Worksoft resources on a contract basis. They would come to your location and help you with the development of a script in a short duration.

I would rate Worksoft Certify a six out of ten.

Its primary function is test automation. We record the test procedures and execute them in an automatic way. It gives us reports, in a centralized way, of all the information that we need to manage test automation for the ERP system and a few other systems as well.

We moved from manual regression testing, once a month, to continuous testing every second day, with the same scope or even an increased scope now. We don't need to focus on the manual regression tests, so we've freed up hands for support activities and new developments. I don't think that it has changed how our organization works directly, but we have become more efficient and more flexible.

In our estimation now, we save about 160 hours of manpower every month because we use Certify. It's 80 hours of robots executing the tests, and they're doing it roughly three times faster than humans. To do the same manually, and keep up with the general pace of development, we would spend 240 hours on testing every month.

In terms of codeless, end-to-end process automation across packaged applications, technically speaking there is some programming or development, like you would learn in middle school. But you don't need to be a professional in any programming language to run it. That's how we've done it. We don't deploy any additional software packages with it. We haven't developed anything else, other than using Certify steps to run end-to-end test automation.

Nevertheless you still have to have a mindset of a developer or an engineer. You need to have understand cycles and other primitive functional blocks. Still marketing-wise, I would call it codeless due to its simplicity. 

SAP is our core and the people involved with it are not always developers. Some of them are analytics or system experts. They don't know how to write C++ or Python or Java. But they can do testing automation in Certify themselves without help from a centre of competence (CoC). The only time CoC will participate is when truly complicated logic required such as runtime variables staking.

In usual situations, the skill set to start doing test automation needed is much lower.

There are a few aspects that are valuable. First of all, there is the screen-grabbing where you can pick up objects and it automatically recognizes them on the screen. Worksoft call it Certify Capture or LiveTouch. It's automatic capturing properties of the UI objects on the screen or on a mobile device for use in test automation scripts.

Other important feature is the modularization of the tests. That's an important feature not only of Certify but of IT tools overall where you create and reuse the components. Our test scripts are done with a "Russian doll" approach. That's standard for modern IT, however sometimes you see IT products without such functionality. Worksoft Certify's ability to build tests and reuse them is done pretty well and balances simplicity with flexibility.

Due to it, the learning curve improved even further allowing non professional test developers to plug-and-play test scripts. Such approach allows you to have that nice, modular end-to-end test. Can it get better? Probably not without sacrificing some other nice features and simplicity.

In terms of the core functionalities important to us there are the actual coding, great test data management, execution and reporting. Those are the basis, which are shared across many test automation tools. 

We also value that the test execution and reporting are stored in a database. We can extract the results and get the data out more easily comparing to text log files. That's different compared to other tools on the market. In Certify, we have a structured test execution and overall structured data.

Last not least is multi interface support is important for our applications landscape. With certify we can test SAP, Net, Java, Web and Android applications with one tool.

Certify's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications like SAP Fiori was good when we started and they developed it to be even better. We all know that web applications can change objects in DOM quite fast and it breaks tests. To counter it Certify has made object recognition more flexible and generic, so we don't have any troubles.

For standard and UI stable applications like SAP ECC 6.0 we have no trouble at all due to predefined objects and rich library of methods. That means we don't need to spend time writing a library, which could happen in some of the open source frameworks.

One caveat is that if you start running models in different parts of the end-to-end process — when you really try to hit the sky and make everything automatic, to cover multiple supply chain tiers processes in one e2e test, or similar processes that are really complicated — then tool simplicity turns into disadvantage. On other hand it stops us from unnecessary over engineering the test automation framework.

Architecturally, because Worksoft specifically built a database-oriented application, you essentially store code in the database. Git and text files orientation is more traditional approach with boundless set of tools to control versions, manipulation and analysis. But at the same time, Worksoft supplies us with their own version control inside Certify that has sufficient functionality for now. 

When it comes to mobile testing, we have a small bottleneck there. You have to buy third-party separate licenses if you want to test on a mobile. Business wise we see room for improvement there, although it's that really critical for us. 

None of these are showstoppers for our operations. Worksoft proved to delivery significant improvements in last 3 years and more we wait from 11.5 version. Overall, we are quite well covered with test automation related tools and nothing special is needed.

We've been using Worksoft Certify since 2017.

It's stable. Our approach is that we don't deploy the latest fresh version to production straight away. We wait for a few patches and follow with upgrade instructions. It doesn't matter if it's Certify, DB server, Linux or anything else.

Only case I could recall related to stability problem is a one mess-up in the database during over-few-versions upgrade about three years ago. It required some database cleanup with scripts provided by vendor support.

But looking at the overall stability, it doesn't go down or crash. SLA is 100 percent for us.

Because it is three times faster than manual testing, we can test more with fewer people. That gives us operational scalability already. Platform also has the Execution Manager tool if we would like to have technical scalability via a cluster of virtual machines. In addition Certify itself supports multi-agents, APIs, and integration with Jenkins and other applications including PowerShell. That means we can also develop scalable setup ourselves

As for overall scalability of Certify, licensing is the main bottleneck. You cannot scale more than you have licenses for. You cannot uplift your digital workforce just for one month and run 300 nodes strong cluster for a big upgrade tests. It is not different for majority of IT products, we don't see much of a problem for now.

Certify is our main tool for test automation for ERP, for PLM, and HR. It's covering two major applications that are at the core of any big machinery or manufacturing corporation. We continuously increase the scope, because systems are developed and extended.

We use their enterprise-level support and it pays out. We mostly use it for tricky situations. We often talk with 3^rd level, with architects and other experts behind the certify. It gives us good insights. Separate gratitude goes to active key account management on vendor side.

As for our improvement requests, we speak with the community and we speak with architects and provide necessary information. We don’t know do they take it into their backlog or is it just coincidence that Worksoft have provided most of things we asked for. In any case we get what we require for our testing, we in constant contant and we feel that we are listened to.

We did not have a previous technical solution.

The initial setup was pretty straight forward, in general. There is a database, there are clients to install, and you need a licenses server.

The key thing that you need to know is what you are doing, how you do test automation, in general. That's above the specifics of any tool. You must know how to slice system-under-test into functional components, make the right model for reuse. It is important to break down end-to-end testing into smaller reusable items. That's not trivial, and you faced such challenge with any tool. You have to know what you're doing.

The deployment included one of week training and then a proof of concept for a couple of months. We ran typical end-to-end process in the proof of concept and found our ways to deal with above mentioned slicing, development guidelines and how to establish roles. There are useful guidelines provided by vendor as well. Overall it took about one quarter from the GO decision to start running regression tests.

Our approach to testing is as a "safety net," so we don't need to have end-users who run it and hunt for new defects. It's just continuously testing given scope and raises a red flag if something goes wrong. Such approach secures an immediate feedback for the development team or for the quality assurance team.

End users are not involved into testing usually although we could run hybrid testing with a mix of automatic and exploratory tests.

We didn't work with any third-party. There was initial training from the Worksoft itself for one week. That was it.

The return on investment, when we count the 160 man-hours we save monthly, will take about seven years for our scale

License model is a traditional one. As with any other manufacturing company, the software testing is not our core business, it's not in our interest to invest capital into the licenses. It would be preferable to have a pay-per-use model. At the same time, it's a fair game, for now. 

Aside from their standard licensing fee, if you want to have enterprise support, there's an additional cost.

We have done a few comparisons and we're continuously looking at the market to see if there is anything better, cheaper and more suitable. Market is changing a lot, RPA solutions expanding to test automation market, Robot Framework ecosystem is thriving and some other established vendors are operating. We're keeping an eye on it for evaluation. So far, cost-wise, feature-wise, and in terms of the learning curve or skills requirements, we are good with Certify. From our comparisons now, we would pick Certify again.

As always, you have to know what you're trying to achieve. You also have to think about how do you model your system-under-test; how it is written, the quality requirements and standards. The key benefit comes from reusable test scripts. 

When it comes to Certify itself as a tool, keep your eye on objects. If you map something, keep a good inventory so you understand it and you don't put all the objects in one big basket.

For me, the biggest lesson from using Certify is that you can do quite interesting and complicated things with the codeless approach. You don't really need a complicated programming language to do testing. 

Overall, I would rate Worksoft Certify an 8 out of 10. Of course we would like it to be cheaper and more powerful and developed faster. But are there products that I would rate a 9 or 10? I don’t thinks so. It's at the top of the market from what we know about the market.

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.

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.

The primary use case is to automate their SAP and Web applications. We use Worksoft Certify for end-to-end regression and integration testing across our systems.

It helps us to implement automation testing as part of most projects, so the need for manual testing can be reduced. This really accelerates the testing process as a whole. Before, where it could take ten days to test a project, now it takes only one or two days to do the complete testing. So, it helps us to reduce our testing timelines.

We no longer need ten people sitting and manually testing something. We can just have one person running the entire regression automation testing suite, and this has saved us dollars.

I have found Capture 2.0 helpful compared to Capture 1.0. It allows you to have access to all the screenshots when you use it so you see what steps you are capturing, and if you are capturing it right or not. It is very user-friendly.

It is easy to use and learn the application. For example, I have an intern who joined me three months ago. Today, she delivers the same number of scripts as my experienced developers with great quality.

One feature that could be added to Capture 2.0 is generating a PDF file from your capture, so you can see your screenshots and steps. This will really help teams leverage the documents generated as part of requirement/training.

Right now, when we do regression testing, we manually have to generate all the reports and populate all the results in HP ALM. We really are looking for a solution to have send all the results to HP ALM once Execution Manager completes the execution, then automatically logs them.

Our offshore teams experience a lag/delay when using the Worksoft interface. As of now we use VPN and Remote Desktop to help us with this issues, it was be great to see how much Certify 11 has improved in terms to offshore accessibility.

Every time there is a new release of Worksoft, they present it in a conference. However, there is no training document nor one point of solution where I one see what new changes/feature have been implemented, like a portal. If I don't know how to use a feature, there is no training nor documentation available. When you reach out for support, it takes time for them to research it and get back to us.

I would like more use cases or at least a weekly email update to all the customers saying, "These are new features which have been included in the last week." That would really help.

Worksoft with SAP is pretty stable. 

When it comes to the web, you need a lot of extra effort in making sure that the tests are maintained, but that is the nature of the web application. You have stuff that is changing all the time, so you have to ensure that you maintain your tests regularly.

We have learned the scalability part over time. We were very successful with SAP, but not very successful with the web. Over the period of about two years, we were able to prove to our company that we can use Worksoft for different type of applications. While there is a learning curve, it is all about trying things out and failing few times before you get a success.

I would rate the technical support as a seven out of ten. There is a delay in time zones when we reach out to them. The response is not as quick as we expect it to be with the other solutions that we have. There is definitely a delay in timing, as the speed is lacking.

The initial setup was easy. We had all the information and the requirements that we needed to do the prep work before doing the implementation.

We have Worksoft help us each time that we do an upgrade or implementation. Our  upgrades have gone smoothly.

An example of saving time and dollars: We had project going on that used to require manual testing. The first time that they did manual regression testing, we had a group of about 15 testers who sat in our office for a period of two weeks to do the testing. Now, when we have to regression testing with automation scripts ready in our Worksoft Certify, we do it in a day or two. 

We looked at quite a few vendors and automation tools in the market. We chose Worksoft because of the ease of use and mentorship support they provide in making sure we were successful.

For a new customer who is to implement Worksoft Certify, I would suggest 'Start the right way'. Have a Worksoft mentor come in and help you with your automation journey specific to your organization so you can have expert support until you become successful with it. Once you are successful, you'll know what to do. E.g., we had a team of interns who got trained and they tried to work with it, but it did not work. Then, we had Worksoft help us (after two years), and it worked. 

My team and I do the regression testing. We are a team of three to four people. We are not working on just one project, we are working on five or six different projects.

What's next, well I hope we are able to present that next success story in next conference ;)

We have been working on test automation for SAP-based platform for the last 15 years and leveraging Worksoft for SAP test automation in last 10 years. 

We have some fantastic use cases on how we can leverage Worksoft in large SAP transformation programs, especially for major global rollouts. If you look at some of the industries, like retail and logistics, we can see a lot of consolidation. When there is consolidation, we need to merge two SAP landscapes to a single landscape instance. It is a very complex transformation program. The testing is labor-intensive work in such a large scale IT landscape program. Worksoft has played a key role in delivering these complex integration programs on time, because we automated the core processes using Worksoft Certify. This helped us to automate the testing scenarios in new companies being integrated. At the same time, we test the existing company codes on the existing landscape to ensure that business as usual is not impacted.

If you look at the industry trend, the next six or seven years will be SAP S/4HANA migrations and adoptions of SAP cloud applications, whether it is SAP SuccessFactors, Ariba, or Fieldglass. We strongly believe that WorkSoft can play a pivotal role in delivering large-scale SAP S4 HANA programs since Worksoft can support the implementation of SAP cloud applications. We have delivered a couple of major SAP S/4HANA programs by leveraging Worksoft Certify. 

One of the key things that we have done is introduce test automation on day one in system integration testing (SIT). We don't want to wait until the program is over, then start the automation development. We start the automation right from the build phase, then we are able to deliver test automation on day one to the SIT.

If you look at the customer's experience, we have seen that if you take any testing engagement, whether it is large-scale system integration testing activities, UAT, or regression testing, and have seen that companies involve their business workforce to do lot of manual testing. Then, the business needs to take from the business critical activities and focus on testing. Worksoft significantly reduces the testing effort involved, so they can focus on their business critical activities. 

The company has been investing in a lot of new features. They are changing the trend in market demand, especially with their Worksoft Analyze features. These are important for customers when they have massive test case documentations. In addition, Worksoft is changing their direction towards Robotic Process Automation (RPA).

If you take any Robotic Process Automation, the key things you need are:

• The ability to automate SAP.
• The integrated software applications.
• Support for continuous testing or providing a platform to adopt DevOps.

I can see that Worksoft has been investing in these areas to make the product more relevant for SAP-centric platforms.

Another fantastic thing about Worksoft Certify is using it for end-to-end testing of packaged applications. We are able to automate, not just SAP, but the entire application ecosystem. If you take any company, SAP is the backbone, and if they use SAP ERP, then, there are multiple software applications, where some of them are SAP and some of them are non-SAP applications. Worksoft is one of the tools which can transcend across SAP and non-SAP applications. Non-SAP application include Java or .NET. Worksoft can seamlessly automate these applications.

If you take any ALM tool, Worksoft can be easily integrated, whether it is Micro Focus ALM or SAP Solution Manager. Another important thing is Worksoft's integration with SAP Solution Manager BPCA, this is helping customers to set up a risk-based testing platform. They can do impact assessment and identify test scripts to be tested based on the transports to be applied. Then, import that testing suite into Worksoft Certify and trigger the automation. We have seen that bi-directional integration between SAP solution manager and Worksoft Certify. This makes the product seamless, and if you take any company, they have their own ALM tool and the level of usage of Solution manager is varying. WIth the API that Worksoft provides, it can be easily integrated with the leading test management tools available in the market.

I would like Worksoft Certify to do automation at any layer (the UI layer, API layer, or database layer) and challenge competitors in the RPA industry, like UiPath and Automation Anywhere. 

A lot of customers are looking at testing, not just at the UI level, but testing the application or their ecosystem at the API layer. Worksoft could invest on testing on APIs. There are some open source tools available in market which do this, like SoapUI. 

The stability of the automation tool to run without any performance issues has improved with the use three-tier architecture. The three-tier architecture in Worksoft can help the customers access applications across globe. If global customers have geographically diverse teams, we recommend customers go with a three-tier architecture.

We have seen the customers starting their automation journey from zero test scripts to 8000 or 10,000 scripts. We have seen that Worksoft is able to scale up, then run thousands of test scripts concurrently and deliver value.

One of our customers has about 10 SAP applications with about 70 plus non-SAP applications. So, we automate approximately 80 SAP and non-SAP applications using Worksoft Certify.

A lot of our customers have used the technical support. Worksoft has a very good customer success team, as well as technical support team. When we started our first relationship with Worksoft, we had to build the integration between ALM and Worksoft Certify. So, Worksoft was agile enough to build that integration faster. We can see that the technical support team is fast enough to resolve some of the product bugs for any customer queries quickly. The team is open to build any type of new integrations to support the emerging tools available in the market.

As a partner, we help our customers to invest in the right tools and platform. So, we educate our customers to buy Worksoft Certify. We help them to build a business case or plan and do a joint PoC with Worksoft. We enable and empower our customers with enough details and help them to invest in the right automation tool for SAP, which is Worksoft Certify.

Some of our customers do not have any tools in their landscape. In that case, it is easy to position Worksoft Certify. Other customers already have other automation tools in their landscape in which they are experiencing a lot of pain points with their automation tool. They invested a lot of money in their automation tools and framework, but they did not realize the benefits. Therefore, we help those customers move away from their existing tools to Worksoft Certify. If they decide to build on their existing tool and use Worksoft Certify, it's a very complicated decision. We need to build a very strong business case and we also need to help the customers to migrate the automation test suite.

Worksoft installation is straightforward. They have a dedicated team to support the customers during the initial installation. It doesn't take more than couple of days to complete the installation. A lot of our customers are very happy with the way Worksoft completes the initial installations. 

Also, the professional services offered by Worksoft to help the customer to set up the test automation best practices using Worksoft has been helping the customers to roll out enterprise wide automation using Worksoft Certify.

Worksoft Capture 2.0 can help our customers to accelerate their automation development at least 40 percent faster than any other commercial tools available in the market.

We have seen that the initial Worksoft implementation has helped our customers reduce their testing cycle time by 50 percent. With further continuous improvement, we have seen cycle time reduced up to 75 percent. That is the level of productivity achieved using Worksoft Certify.

If I compare Worksoft Certify with other script-based automation tools, the test maintenance is relatively faster. We save about 60 to 70 percent of the maintenance effort by using it because it's model-based and scriptless. This helps the business team and the automation testers to quickly identify the changes needed to be introduced in the automation scripts.

The typical value realization takes about six to 12 months based on the number of scripts and how often the customer wants to execute.

Worksoft can help you to select the right automation platform, then deliver value quickly.

Our customers evaluate three or four major products along with Worksoft: Micro Focus UFT, Tricentis Tosca, Testimony from Basis Technologies, and then some of open source tools. Some of the customers evaluate all the tools, and some of the customers pick one of the other tools along with Worksoft Certify to make their decision.

There are a lot of tools available in the market. However, if you take any automation project, the lead time to implement an automation solution is typically, painfully longer. It may not give the right return on investments. 

We could have gone with any commercial tools available in the market or open source tools, but going with Worksoft gave us a few advantages. We were able to deliver and implement automation two and a half times faster than any other automation tools. Then, if you look at the total cost of effort to build, maintain, and run the scripts in the customer landscape, it is phenomenally low compared to other tools in the market.

Worksoft gives you return on investment faster than its competitors. It will make your QA organization more agile and nimble.

We recommend our customers be very serious about automation and not to experiment with too many tools. Start with a small PoC or pilot. Involve their business team to articulate the value of what Worksoft can deliver, not just within the IT department, but also the business. 

Worksoft Certify has ease of use, ease of maintenance, and value realization. Automation is not just completing testing faster, it's about reducing production support incidents, after go-live or ongoing production support incidents. It's a collective total cost of ownership and all about delivering value to the IT operations team, IT project team, and the business team.

With Capture 2.0, we have seen the product evolve. Worksoft Capture 2.0 is helping our customers to accelerate automation development. Introducing automation around day one is only possible because of Capture 2.0. When we are in the build phase, we can capture the important screens, whether it is in SAP Fiori apps, the SAP GUI, or SAP cloud apps. During the development phase, we can start building the automation scripts, then start leveraging automation on day one in SIT.

Worksoft can support modern UIs quite easily, such as SAP Fiori and Oracle Fusion. If you look at the modern UIs, it is all about the customer experience, and we have seen that Worksoft can evaluate that modern user interface and ensure that the customer experience is delivered as expected.