Worksoft Certify Reviews

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.

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

The product has worked very well with SAP.

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

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

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

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

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

The scalability is good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not using it for web UI testing.

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.

We mainly use Worksoft Certify for SAP automation, whereas we have web-based SAP and normal SAP background applications.

Worksoft Certify has helped organizations save time by using automation.

The most valuable features of Worksoft Certify are the way we can maintain the processes and sub-processes inside. We can immediately identify and replicate multiple objects in the application without having a major issue with it. We are able to do a lot of operations even with the solution being completely scriptless. That is a large advantage compared with other automation tools.

There are some other more complete tools than Worksoft Certify, such as Tricentis Tosca. It has a quicker way of taking in a customer's feedback with more efficiency. I do not see Worksoft Certify having a lot of progress over the years that we have used the tool in this area.

From 2014 to 2022, there were fewer improvements in the UI looks and feel. Overall there were fewer improvements in the solution. There were some challenges that we faced with our customers, and Worksoft Certify provides customer-specific call announcements. For example, customer A is trying to work on Worksoft Certify, they will face a specific challenge in utilizing the tool, and Worksoft Certify provides a custom solution to them. With customer B, they are faced with other challenges, and Worksoft Certify provided them with a customized solution. There is a chance that the same issue that was faced with customer A, customer B had also. Instead of Worksoft Certify providing a dedicated solution for everyone, they were providing solutions on a customized level. They can improve on this process.

There were some challenges that we faced with respect to automation. For example, there were some areas where we had to do a drag and drop of some of the objects from one place to another. In some of the areas in SAP where you have to perform a drag and drop, that feature was not available in Worksoft Certify. We had to find some alternate ways of doing those things.

I have been using Worksoft Certify for approximately three years.

The performance and stability of Worksoft Certify were good. We don't see a lot of issues or challenges that we're facing in this area. We have a 98 percent stability rate. We don't expect a lot of issues to happen in the application. On the SAP side, it was completely normal, it was working as expected, but coming to the web-based applications, when there are major changes. We have to remap the controls sometimes to ensure that the controls are working as expected.

Worksoft Certify is a highly scalable solution. However, it was a bit slower compared to the other automation tools. For example, Tricentis Tosca is providing major competition to Worksoft Certify and they are slightly a better tool. Whenever Worksoft Certify faces any challenges they're providing some patches to fix them, and that is helping the automation to grow faster and more efficiently. We have the layouts and plenty of recordsets that make Worksoft Certify more scalable.  

As an architect, I have to compare the support to other automation tools, there are some free tools, such as Selenium, where there is no support. However, there are some tools, such as Tricentis Tosca, where there is a dedicated technical support team who are available 24 hows a day seven days a week in the chat. We can directly chat and communicate with them. With Worksoft Certify we have to contact them directly and sometimes it can take some time, and the solutions that they provide are customer-specific. That is another challenge because when we have to work with multiple customers, this is another challenge that we face.

Neutral

I have been using multiple automation tools, such as Worksoft Certify, UFT, and Tricentis Tosca. Additionally, I have worked on other automation tools, such as Selenium and AccelQ. I provide solutions to the clients based on their requirements. I work on different automation tools.

We have a set of regression test cases that are already identified with the customer. They used to provide those sets of regression test cases to be used in their projects. We had to create some processes and sub-processes, such as our layouts and recordsets for the projects. Once we create all our sets, we create our regression suites using these areas and start working on them. We used to do a time-bound process where we needed to automate all these elements in a specific set of time that we had. Once we are done with the automation, we performed the activation of the sets in a cycle.

For the understanding of the requirements of Worksoft Certify, it did not take us a lot of time because we understand the process which is very important. Due to the specific functional area in SAP initial took the automation developers some time until they understood the functional requirement. However, once we understood how we were going to handle or manage the static and dynamic data, then the automation was simple using Worksoft Certify.

Once we complete the automation, our SMEs used to start utilizing this solution whenever there is any deployment. Instead of triggering the script manually, our SME triggers the automation scripts that they have the regression suite executed, and for other new automation scripts. Whatever the testing team tests the functional they started using Worksoft Certify for creating those automation scripts and started using them. There are different clients requirements based on the deployments. The deployments used to happen every two months, we have some regression suite to be executed, and whatever the new development that is going to happen, we used to utilize the dev environment to automate them and start executing them in the QA. This way they were faster and we can do instant automation.

We typically have a team of six people who were involved in the development of our particular automation scripts, and the exact number of people depends on the project that needs these scripts. For example, in my initial project where I worked on Worksoft Certify, we had a team of 13 people who were working for different process areas. We have different areas, such as production planning, retail management, and quality management service. Each area was handled by a specific developer and we used to have some teammates who were helping us and assisting in the automation of these scripts.

Normally it can take clients a lot of time for doing the regression. Using Worksoft Certify has reduced the time needed for this process. They don't need to replace all their SMEs for performing the regression because normally it used to take a lot of time for doing the initial regression activation. There were a lot of bugs that were reported and were reduced when we started using this tool. They used to use 10 people for doing the regression previously, for a span of a week. By using Worksoft Certify with using the automation scripts and 10 different systems activations happening, we saved a lot of time. We have seen a return on investment by using Worksoft Certify.

Worksoft Certify is slightly more expensive compared to other automation tools that are available on the market. However, the majority of the clients who are utilizing this solution, don't care much about the price. The main aspect the clients look for is its stability and reliability on the automation and whether they are able to rely on the automation scripts.

The solution can be purchased in different packages, some can include support.

I have evaluated lots of other solutions.

I have approximately eleven years of experience in this industry and over the past few years, I have been working as a senior architect.

Worksoft Certify is a good tool, but any tool can perform efficiently if you follow the best practices. If you're not following or utilizing the tool properly, there are chances that you might miss the opportunity. The main challenge with script less automation tools, such as Worksoft Certify or Tricentis Tosca is that you have to implement it along with best practices, and if proper best practices are implemented for these tools from the beginning, they can be extremely efficient and beneficial tools that can help to reduce efforts.

I rate Worksoft Certify a seven out of ten.