Worksoft Certify Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

Easy interaction with DOS files during execution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The company is using it across our IT landscape on different projects. We use it to test web applications, SAP mainly. Right now, we're doing a big conversion project. The one that I am working on is a big conversion from an old mainframe system over to SAP. Thus, we are using it to automate all the UAT test cases.

We have also used it in other areas of the company for ServiceNow upgrades and general web design stuff.

For this SAP upgrade or implementation, the business users are creating building blocks in their areas, then they're changing the building blocks into long end-to-end scripts to do a complete end-to-end testing to speed up the UAT. It definitely has a bigger coverage of UAT testing.

• It is user-friendly. We can give the tool to business users, and they're able to use the tool pretty efficiently without a whole lot of training. 
• The reporting features are nice. 
• It is easy to take someone else's work and manipulate it to use yourself. 
  
• It is not heavily code-based, so you can pick it up and automate very quickly.

For Execution Manager, I would like it to be more robust interface and be able to view the remote machines full screen instead of a little window. This would be a great upgrade for us.

I would also like more customized reports without having to print out big reports.

It is a very stable product. When we have had upgrades, it's been pretty seamless. Older versions of our scripts work in the newest update without a lot of rework.

It is very scalable with users. We have business users who are scripting. We have Worksoft developers who do more complicated work. Then, it moves over to the people who do execution and process through Execution Manager, so we have several different layers of users doing different tasks.

The technical support is very good. They are very responsive. When we have created tickets with them, there is usually a 24-hour turnaround time, then we are contacted back. Their interface is good for back and forth communication.

It is not practical to do manual testing anymore due to the volume of it. The amount of data variations is too great to test manually. If we were going to do it manually, we definitely would not have full coverage, where now we can get pretty close to full coverage on our tests.

When you are implementing Worksoft Certify, it is probably best to bring some Worksoft consultants in to help get you setup, and set it properly. Because if you don't get your initial systems, like your folder structures and your naming conventions, set at the beginning, there is a lot of rework to get it to work. We did have to go through that.

We save probably 50 percent of our time. The tool does what it's supposed to do, and we are able to actually work.

Worksoft Certify is a good product. The customer support is really helpful and supportive. They are always upgrading their products to new features, which we like. It is a pretty stable tool, which doesn't require a lot of maintenance.

Our environment has SAP Fiori. They are also doing a HANA implementation. As far as the web, I don't work on that side as much.

I haven't used the Capture 2.0 very much.

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

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

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

For the tool, its valuable features are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What autotesting has helped us do is consolidate our test cases because our company departments were testing in their own individual silos, running their own test cases manually. Now, with autotesting, we have been able to eliminate duplication of test cases across those departmental areas. This has helped us knock down our number of test cases. Our test cases are also running more optimally. Therefore, it has very much helped in that sense, so we were able to eliminate a lot of test cases and get out of manual silos by running on autotesting, which is more efficient.

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

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

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

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

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

We looked into TCS and Cognizant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never seen the tool crash before.

It is scalable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have a long partnership with Worksoft.

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

Primary use case is for SAP support testing.

People focus on what they actually want to test and define it in a more detailed way. It shines a light on what they are testing, along with the speed and adaptability.

• Reusability
• Scheduling ability
• The modularization of testing: It brings a more functional level, as opposed to the technical level.

A feature that I am looking forward to in version 11 is a search capability, where you can search within the script themselves for keywords. That will be really helpful.

More than five years.

It is stable from an application standpoint. Sometimes, there is complexity within the virtual machines that they run on, or the hardware, depending on the configuration that their client has setup. Sometimes, this is a bit of an issue to overcome, but I don't see this as a Worksoft Certify issue.

If done properly, it's very scalable. It creates automation which can be run from an SAP point of view. I can create automation which runs in any SAP environment that I want it to run in, as long as the UI is the same.

Their technical support is very good. They have different aspects of technical support:

• If you're standing up a project, they can be with you every step of the way. 
• When you just submit a ticket, they'll respond to you and get back to you within their service level agreement.

Worksoft Certify's codeless scripting appeals along with the use of the Capture feature which helps in those initial phases. It also helps to translate the business requirements to the automation team. If there's a separate team, this is a little better too.

There is recognition in the industry that automation capabilities, like Worksoft Certify, create value for companies, as things are only getting harder and larger. Companies are integrating systems to try to align their processes.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. The team helps guide you. The technical support is there. It comes down to the training that's applied, and having the people who understand the use of the tool.

The typical range that we see is between 50 to 90 percent improvement in speed capabilities. Another aspect comes with the depth that they're able to test. It increases their capabilities overall to test at a broader level.

Our customers often evaluate Tricentis along with Worksoft.

From an Accenture point of view, our customer chose Worksoft because of our alliance with them. It's the capability that we've built and the knowledge base that we bring along with that.

Capture 2.0 is good for new implementations or new processes. It's not as useful when you get into more mature automation. Its documentation and automation are fairly straightforward.

There is a bit of a learning curve around the Worksoft Certify tool. The best practices, which are lined out by Worksoft, as long as those are followed, then this leads you to understanding the tool and using it in a proper way. If you don't get started off on the right foot, it will be hard to course correct. So, it is vital that they get started on the right foot and understand the best practices. The product's learning curve is relatively good.

Automation is only as good as the functional knowledge that is used in order to create it. This tool works extremely well. Manual testing and automation testing are two different animals. You have to look at automation in a different way. Simply taking manual scripts and automating them, and you're not going to get the full value out of a solution like Worksoft that you could if you were to rationalize the testing and come up with an automated approach.

When you're manually testing, it's about having the least number of clicks possible. Every click for a human is time. With automation, clicks don't cost anything. You might approach the testing in a different manner. It would take a human multiple times longer, but with automation, it makes sense not only from that specific test case point of view, but also from a reuse factor. When you're going to use a certain business process that you've created, then reuse it for different work streams.

Our primary use case for Worksoft Certify is the automation of test cases. Performance-wise Worksoft Certify is very good. 

The most valuable feature of Worksoft Certify is that it has a codeless environment, so you do not have to be a programmer to use it. 

Worksoft Certify supports multiple interfaces and applications like SAP, Web, or Silverlight Java, and Mainframe. It is easily integrated. 

I have used the tool for a long time and much has improved over the years. Many new features have been added and the tool improves on a daily basis. The UI is much better now and it looks much nicer as well. 

Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved. 

I have been using Worksoft Certify for nine years. I use the product on a daily basis. 

Worksoft Certify is easy to scale. We have somewhere between 60 and 80 people using it at the moment. 

We do have technical support from Worksoft Certify. When we do run into issues, we first see if we can sort them out in-house. If we are not able to, we reach out to them and they look into the issue and sort it out. 

Positive

I previously used Selenium. Comparing these two products, I can say that you need much more IT knowledge to use Selenium. Worksoft Certify is quite easy to debug. 

The initial setup was easy. On a scale of one to five, with one being very complex and five being very easy, I would give the Worksoft Certify deployment process a five. It also does not need very much maintenance at all. 

We deployed Worksoft Certify in-house. The deployment did not take much time at all. It took just a few hours. 

Worksoft Certify is a bit costly. It is a good product so the cost is a bit high. But I'm not sure about how much we pay for it exactly. 

The advice I would give to someone looking to implement Worksoft Certify is this: contact the provider and request what you need to be installed. Once the solution is installed, you can open up the user manuals and start learning it. It is easy to learn and implement a project in Worksoft Certify.

On a scale from one to ten, with one being the worst and ten the best, I would rate this product a ten overall. 

The primary use is developing automation on SAP at a medical device company moving from Micro Focus UFT scripts.

We were able to increase the percentage of automation from between 40% and 50% to 80% within a year.

The most valuable feature is the ability to automate quickly and to maintain and update scripts.

We would like this to be able to be used outside of SAP applications, as it would be good for other types of products.

I have been using Worksoft Certify for three years.

We expanded licenses after a year.

Prior to this product, we used Micro Focus UFT.

We evaluated an SAP escalator from SAP in UFT.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to get consulting and on-site training.

The primary use case is for SAP applications. We do some end-to-end testing of applications. We created a checking and boarding process for a flying scenario, which was innovative. For the back-end systems, we use it to do financial valuations.

We also have a SAP HCM module and SAP FI module where we are actively using Worksoft for our current automation.

We have Worksoft Certify on everyone's desktop. So, when we want to trigger automation, it is a advantage.

We use Worksoft Certify for smoke testing and regulation testing purposes.

There is no porting and it is easily adaptable. If you give it to a functional tester or business analyst, anyone can go, run the test, and analyze the results. It is easy to introduce automation tools to the team members. We have installed Worksoft for all of our team members. We have functional testers, business analysts, and manual test leads. We have an offshore automation team, as well as a functional team.

It is easily adoptable. I don't need to hire a highly skilled/trained person to learn it. For other tools, personnel need to be very professional and need to know how to use that tool beforehand, but very little education or help is required here. They can easily adopt and trigger the automation. 

We are not using Certify in the development area, only in the functional or end-to-end areas, and there is a lot of activity going on in the development area recently. Right now, the development teams are using open source tools, like Jenkins. This would be a game changer if Worksoft could start in the development area.

Going forward, Worksoft will be integrating with Jenkins, which will be great for us.

A part of our CI/CD pipeline, we have to deploy through Cloud AWS. So, it is good to hear that they are moving to AWS too.

The stability is pretty good. I haven't seen any stability issues.

One year ago, our SQL Server database was running slowly with it. Then, we upgraded our SQL Server database to the 2016 version. Before that, we had only upgraded Worksoft without upgrading our database, so we were noticing some latency issues. Once we upgraded our database, I have not received any complaints from our team members.

It is highly scalable and reusable. It is easy for team members to maintain and use with confidence. There is great versatility.

We have 16 applications that we do end-to-end testing using Worksoft.

Worksoft technical support is pretty good. A few times where we upgraded, our team members communicated everything to Worksoft well, and issues were resolved pretty quickly. They are pretty supportive. 

With one of our applications where we do check-in, Worksoft is not able to identify the Java-based application. We raised the ticket, but we were unable to resolve this using Worksoft.

Worksoft already existed when I joined. I am part of the team that maintains it.

If someone in the company wants Worksoft, they call the technology desk. Then, they get the proper license and credentials. The initial setup for these cases is straightforward.

Worksoft did the implementation. Our experience with them was great.

Later on, Cognizant took over from Worksoft.

The product has save us time by not needing highly skilled people, since it is hard to retain experienced development resources. Once we train our functional testers who are running the automation, they can the tool well and stable.

Cost-wise, compared with other tools, it is a great product.

Worksoft Certify is a great tool, which is easy to use and maintain, as no porting needed, development, nor high technical skills are needed. 

Worksoft Certify is a great automation tool for SAP applications.

We do test UI. The UI is very dynamic, as it keeps changing, now and then. It's a very critical, where we are using Worksoft to create innovation. However, our goal is to validate financial valuations. 

The company mainly uses Selenium for CI/CD processes for check-in. Therefore, each time a developers does a check-in, it automatically gives a bill with some pass/fail information, which includes Jenkins.

While we are not using the Capture 2.0 feature, it seems like it will be useful going forward with our end-to-end automation.