We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Worksoft Certify based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The features that I find most useful and the ones that I use the most are local site testing, device and browser testing, and screenshots."
"The CrossBrowserTesting Selenium API and live test features have greatly improved our team's ability to quickly and effectively perform QA."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"The ability to replay sessions is valuable for tracking down issues."
"The extensive range of products available to simulate is something I have come to appreciate as it has resulted in an ability to broaden the scope of our tests."
"It was the perfect solution that saved us time and money to perform web viewing tests on real devices, which allowed our team to correct multiple failures in devices."
"It helps us to implement automation testing as part of most projects, so the need for manual testing can be reduced. This really accelerates the testing process as a whole. Before, where it could take ten days to test a project, now it takes only one or two days to do the complete testing."
"Certify's web UI testing abilities for testing of modern applications like SAP Fiori was good when we started and they developed it to be even better. We all know that web applications can change objects in DOM quite fast and it breaks tests. To counter it Certify has made object recognition more flexible and generic, so we don't have any troubles."
"It is very easy to maintain. With scripts, I can change one line and in one step. Whatever I want, I can do. I don't need to be an expert to use it."
"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."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"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."
"The Capture 2.0 feature is very intuitive, useful, and user-friendly. You can do so much with it now, versus the older version."
"It's pretty seamless with SAP and Salesforce because they've built in the field definitions and all the things that you need. You literally turn it on and execute your script and it records it. It's very simple. Then you can go back and put in some of the other functions. For example, instead of hard-coding field selections, you put in a data table so you can run it multiple times or with multiple data. It was actually written to work very well with SAP."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"Being able to test on real devices via the virtual connection is wonderful, but it can cause some lag and load time issues while testing."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"I would like BPP to have more filtering options during the report creation. This would make our customers happy."
"There was a change to Capture 2.0. In the end, there have been some challenges with the newer version. Therefore, the company testers, the local ones, do not want to use Capture 2.0."
"Technical support's first response to us is usually late."
"Worksoft Certify's tech support's response time could be improved."
"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."
"Our interactions with technical support has not been the best always and there is room for improvement especially with respect to the time taken to respond to cases. However, with the right contacts and reasonable escalations we have always managed to get quick attention on our cases."
"The web application should be more robust."
"It is poor for a web based application."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools while Worksoft Certify is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 64 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while Worksoft Certify is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Worksoft Certify writes "Enables us to automate end-to-end testing of our integration between S/4HANA and Salesforce.com". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, Tricentis Tosca, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify, whereas Worksoft Certify is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ, OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio and UiPath Test Suite. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Worksoft Certify report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
