Worksoft Certify Reviews

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.

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 automated a big end-to-end process: Hybrid to SAP to Manhattan, then back to SAP.

We have web UI automation testing. Hybrid is a type of web UI testing. We have SaaS automation testing, along with CRM testing. We also have Manhattan, which is a third-party application.

We are now trying to automate all our applications: SAP, web, third-party, and legacy. Instead of multiple tools, we have been able to have Worksoft handle a lot of our applications. This has saved us a lot of time and effort. 

The test automation for SAP is very good. It works with the automated dial up menu, which helps us compared to the other marketing tools in SAP.

People who don't have coding knowledge are capable of doing automation with Certify. It reduces coding and scripting dependencies.

We would like it to support mobile automation going forward.

The stability is pretty good.

The technical support is pretty good. However, their first response is usually late. Once they start responding, it will be on time.

Our upgrade last year was straightforward.

We no longer have any manual efforts for our regression testing, which we run on a weekly basis. So, we are saving two resources at 80 hours a week.

I would recommend Worksoft Certify. It is a library for everything. It supports cloud applications, and the market is moving into the cloud.

The Capture 2.0 feature worked very well with the maintenance testing versus the regular development.

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

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

These are some cases where automation helped:

1. Mostly in the area of project testing, the most immediate benefit is when you historically have manual testers do a certain job, and a full regression testing was previously done 100 percent manually. We have had cases where the release testing for an entire region would take around 12 weeks. With Worksoft, we are now down to two to three weeks.
2. The second benefit would be production execution runs. This would be where we run test cases to do certain transactions, like mergers and acquisitions. Or with asset migrations, there are hundreds and hundreds of lines of assets, that we just need to set up, which can be done by Worksoft.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We evaluated Worksoft vs Tricentis. Our criteria for evaluation:

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

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

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

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

We used Worksoft Certify with SAP ECC and Fiori applications in the beginning. We extended that to the ServiceNow application. We have up to 15 modules in ServiceNow with 750 test cases. Our regression testing suite is around a 1000 processes.

Previously, the business was spending a lot of time on processes. So, we started automating and executing these processes on a weekly basis. Last year, we had planned and resourced only one major upgrade, but due to this automation work, we were able to add one extra upgrade.

It provides a lot of time savings. We are always ready to execute a task whenever the business asks us. We saved approximately 7000 hours in 2018.

The solution is easy to use.

The stability has been good, so far.

The scalability has been good. At first, we targeted complete automation only for ECC systems. Then, we extended it to CRM and ServiceNow, not only for the North American region, but for the European and Asian regions, as well. Our company is global, and our next regional rollout will be Latin America.

The level of technical support depends on the engineer who comes to the call. I'm not really happy with it. I want to have quick response for my issues. I'm not the technical person. I'm paying for them to support me. 

They come on, and say, "Oh, so-and-so link is here, go through that link, and make the modifications." I'm not comfortable in making those changes. I want to schedule a call, share my screen, and have them fix it for me. That would be a beneficial time savings for both of us.

We were using UFT before Worksoft and were not happy. UFT was too technical. We wanted to switch over to an easier tool, which was how we switched to Worksoft.

The initial setup went well. It was straightforward. We wrote all down instructions and procedures that we need to have before the installation. Once we had everything in hand, the configuration was easy.

Worksoft did the deployment. They were awesome. 

We worked with Charlene Smith. She did the installation for us.

We saved $1.3 million using Worksoft Certify in 2017. 

Our 2018 numbers aren't available yet.

We are not using Capture 2.0 at this point, because we don't have a Worksoft Analyze license.

This solution came to us as part of IBM ELA Worldwide. The company had ELA at that time and told us that this was part of our ELA, "Why don't you go try it out?" We did a PoC, and we liked it. Without a second thought, we signed up for it.

I definitely recommend Worksoft Certify. We went with a vendor and have seen a lot of problems with it, so go with the best partner for automation. I also want to advise to go with the best practices, as there is a difference technically when you follow the best practices. 

We have integrated Worksoft Certify with Micro Focus ALM. From ALM, we execute some tasks from Micro Focus Quality Center.

Our test maintenance time is really low at this point. In the beginning, we were having around a 30 percent of failure test cases and spending a lot of time on those test maintenance cases. Now, there is less than ten percent failed. We use Execution Manager, and once the execution is done, we spend time on the less than ten percent of failed test cases failed. For the last six months, we have not crossed more than ten percent.

We use it for SAP and ERP. I think from the SAP and ERP point of view, it is very good.

When we used it for web based application, so it was quite poor.

One, it's module based and it's giving functionality. That is, first of all we can really implement it as an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning). We can utilize our concept and our functional people to work with the tool and without having a lot of technical knowledge, so they can really work with the tool with small technical knowledge. So that's really a big thing for us. We can use the tool with our existing people so that we don't need to have a new technical expert using the tool.

It is poor for a web based application. We are living in very integrated organization are most of the companies out there. There's the big companies we have these organizations that we work with, where we have plenty of different services which are very much connected. So, we are really looking solution which really can support all the different services. We really need to focus end to end instead of stand alone case. 

Whatever reportings are there, so they're really not very user-friendly. So there is a lot of technical data instead of user-friendly data. It would be wonderful to add web support, I would really like to see this in the future.

If I would evaluate it on a scale of one to seven, I would give it a seven. 

It's not very scalable. 

They struggle to provide an accurate solution.

I think it was not really very difficult. It was quite easy to set up the tool. The architectural tool was really easy.

We define certain different criteria. We check if the vendor is giving support for the tool, and we also evaluate the price. Of course, we also take note of the ROI of the solution.

This product is a good one, if you are really focusing as an ERP. We really need to have a solution which is really end to end rather than just focusing on key product. It's good to be aware if there something that can support you end to end rather than one specific product.

When talking about continuous testing, so then the tool is not really good at all because you need to purchase some additional tools. For example, the Execution Manager and  other tools, which are an additional cost. 

Another added cost is the payment necessity for reporting.

We are using it so far for regression testing. We have reduced 5% to 10% of regression related issues. This is a huge impact on our organization. So that's really quite good improvement in our eyes.

The reporting feature is something we look forward to. Also, the Worksoft training that we have done was mainly on the web application along with SAP, SNOW, and Silverlight integrations with the tool. It works efficiently with any tool. The projects we mainly used were for the testing of SAP applications over the web. 

Automating the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) process is the most valuable feature of this tool which helps us save loads of time for our clients on the projects and also generating testing and other reports.

We are doing Worksoft Online Training and also take up various Worksoft automation testing projects. I have totally trained about 50 participants on this tool. Most of the trainees are happy to learn and use this product in their jobs now. We have also done two projects, one for retail sales chain and another for a banking project. Both of the projects were delivered on time and the clients are happy to generate some automated OOB reports and also create their own Receipts. The clients were happy with our timelines and also with the training we offered at the end of the implementation.

Most of the features are good. However, being codeless is the best feature that makes it easy to use for those who have done any coding but understand simple English like commands. Anyone with basic knowledge of using a basic tool can learn and implement the solutions with Worksoft. This is why we have been able to train so many consultants on this tool and they use the same in their jobs currently and keep referring us for more candidates. We recommend using this tool for your automation testing projects.

Pricing is a bit high and we would like to have the availability of a trail environment for beginners and training would be great to have and easier to expand and use by more and more consultants.

The bigger reports needs to be more customized by the tool for better use, also tool also can be further simplified by a better Graphical user interface (GUI) will help us a great deal while taking up projects. 

We look forward for these upgrades so we can enjoy using the tool more and help others learn this tool.

I have been using this for the past three years. It has evolved as a codeless automation tool for testing. We used sed 10.0.1 and are currently using 11. 

We have also used few other tools for our trainings. 

ROI is pretty good so far.

We would like to have a cheaper version for a single user/trail version of the same for our trainings. The cloud based environment should be available free for the trainings for 15 days or so.

We do trainings on a needed basis so we understand the demand of various tools in the market. We strongly believe while Worksoft is a good tool it is losing its potential a bit to other tools in the market. The demand for training has gone down in the last two years.

It is not for the entire automation process. It is mainly for anything which needs to be automated. Instead of just replacing human work, which it is doing now. It also includes robotic process automation for when we are replacing centralize manual work.

Our clients use Worksoft Certify for end-to-end testing of packaged applications and web UI testing of modern applications.

I have been using BPP and Execution Manager for more than seven years. I sell the product to different clients.

It is a great improvement, especially from my client side, where I have implemented it. One of my clients wanted to replace weekend production and support. They were using mini applications that did not need to work on the weekends. So, it was purely replaced with Certify's automation, so they did not need to come into the office on the weekends. This saves a lot of time and frees employees up on weekends.

The tool itself is a great tool. There are some other tool out there which support only web applications as opposed to only Windows-based applications, etc. It is a huge improvement, as it recognizes complex general applications, where most tools won't recognize the objects within them.

It is very easy to use, but there are some places where they need to improve their security. E.g., the BPP tool is just a URL, which does not ask you for a username and password. Anyone can login and can see it. This is a challenge.

Regarding the Execution Manager, which is good, since it comes with a username, password, etc. However, once you are logged inside, anyone can execute anything. It shouldn't allow this. Worksoft should create restrictions at the folder level structures, or somewhere they know they can align only few people to do the job, instead of allowing anyone do anything that they like.

The stability is good.

The scalability is working well for our needs.

The technical support is good. I would like them to get straight to the problem and provide solutions instead of asking a thousand questions.

Worksoft Certify has a very simple language. Our clients want to save on cost and ensure everyone who is manual testing knows it takes more effort.

The solution has cut our clients' test maintenance time for changes, like patches or system upgrades. They used to take a lot of time until the production validation completed. Now, it is just seconds until it is ready, so they can do executions within couple of minutes. 

This solution has enabled our clients to automate and save time (approximately 40 to 50 percent).

The product has saved our clients' money

The product works well with SAP and non-SAP products.

Use this tool. It is really good.