No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs Worksoft Certify comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Digital.ai Continuous Testing
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
16th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (2nd)
Worksoft Certify
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
89
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 1.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Worksoft Certify is 3.0%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Worksoft Certify3.0%
Digital.ai Continuous Testing1.5%
Other95.5%
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Mampi Bhattacharya - PeerSpot reviewer
Developer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Continuous testing has accelerated daily releases and now provides faster, richer debugging insights
Digital.ai Continuous Testing could be better in certain areas, and I can share my experience-based view on what can be frustrating. One issue is device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours. Sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines. Improvements are needed in smarter auto-scaling of device pools and better priority-based scheduling. Additionally, execution speed variability occurs; the same test sometimes runs fast and sometimes slow, depending on device load and network latency, making results less predictable. More stable execution environments and better performance isolation per session would help. Furthermore, debugging can still be indirect; even with logs or videos, I do not fully control the device as I would with local debugging, making it hard to pause and inspect live states or reproduce edge-case issues locally. More interactive debugging and improved local reproduction tools are necessary. Cost versus usage efficiency is another area of concern, as device cloud usage can be expensive and we sometimes have idle or inefficient tests that waste money. Improvements in usage analytics and cost optimization suggestions for smart test selection to run only impacted tests are areas where I believe Digital.ai Continuous Testing could improve.
Muddisetty Arun Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
WorkSoft Certified Automation Engineer at Qualesce
Automation has delivered strong ROI with AI-driven test prioritization and parallel reporting
The best feature of Worksoft Certify is the automatic report generation. Unlike traditional tools like Selenium or Java-based frameworks where reporting often requires custom coding, Certify handles this natively. We are currently utilizing the 14.5 version, which has modernized these capabilities, though we frequently manage backward compatibility for clients still running on the 12.x version series.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most useful feature for me is Mobile Studio. It has a UI where I can click on elements, and it generates a script for me. Mobile Studio can generate code from testing steps. I'm using Python with it."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"I have seen a clear positive ROI after implementing Digital.ai Continuous Testing, especially in terms of time saving, faster release cycle, and improved efficiency."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a pretty positive impact on the organization, especially in terms of speed and reliability."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a very positive impact in terms of efficiency and quality."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has positively impacted my organization with massive reductions in testing time, enabling us to cut our regression cycle from two to three days down to two to three hours, transition from weekly releases to nearly daily deployments, and reduce production defects by 30 to 50% while significantly improving debugging efficiency and overall team productivity."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing, and they also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"We were able to increase the percentage of automation from between 40% and 50% to 80% within a year."
"We were able to do it in a fraction of the time and with a broader scope than they would have been able to do."
"With Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"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."
"We're getting good value from continuous testing management, and the fact that it's also codeless is valuable."
"We are able to scale up the testing and to address more business-driven projects using Worksoft, which would not be possible with any other tools."
"Most important feature is the ability to automatically perform test without the need of a manual script, it's very fast and can perform overnight testing without human intervention (Lights-out testing)."
"After implementation of Worksoft, the same test scenarios currently run in approximately 45 minutes – hands free!"
 

Cons

"I would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times."
"The integration process was good, but I've faced some challenges. Every time they release a new version, I find bugs in the UI and features. Sometimes, buttons don't work well. When this happens, I submit a ticket to technical support, but they often have to fix it in the next version."
"One challenge is that the initial setup and integration with CI/CD pipelines can sometimes be a bit complex, especially for teams new to automation."
"Device availability and queue delays during peak CI hours are an issue; sometimes devices are busy, causing tests to queue and the pipeline to slow down unexpectedly, which is especially painful for large regression suites or tight release timelines."
"I have been automating tests for many years on many things but not on mobile devices. The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before. I spent the first two weeks just getting it started. It would be good to have some video explanation of how to use it on your devices and get started. Their online documentation is quite good and extensive, but it would be quite good to have some end-to-end examples demonstrated."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a strong platform, but there are a few areas where it could be improved to make the experience even better."
"The amount of time that I have spent on just figuring out how to use Experitest and get it to work was quite long compared to what I have been doing before."
"Some features are missing from a testing perspective. You need to know how to connect everything to create requirements and stability metrics for the routine."
"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."
"Better automation capability would be helpful."
"They need to keep working on the mobile interface, the API part, and they need to improve more on web applications."
"Web UI testing was difficult in the beginning, as we had a homegrown product, and we had to do the proper object naming."
"For beginners, I think this is the most problematic aspect."
"On the Capture 2.0 topic, we were not satisfied, because we had a version that wasn't really tested from my perspective."
"For the web application, we are facing stability-related challenges because the properties are getting changed, and when the development team makes any backend changes, our Worksoft scripts are getting changed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"It is quite fairly priced, but it really depends on your budget. It is somewhere in the mid-range of products. It is not free and it is not QGP that nearly costs a whole house. You pay for the number of users who require access to execute the tests."
"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"We have seen that the initial Worksoft implementation has helped our customers reduce their testing cycle time by 50 percent. With further continuous improvement, we have seen cycle time reduced up to 75 percent. That is the level of productivity achieved using Worksoft Certify."
"I can only judge based on the situation that we had around six years ago when we did the tool evaluation. Worksoft was not the cheapest, but it provided the value. For 25 concurrent licenses, we paid more than €400,000, so it was not cheap. In the end, if you see how much time you are saving and compare it with others, its price is okay. We had also compared its cost with the licensing costs for HP and Tricentis, and they were at another level. Now, as we have already booked the licenses, we only have to pay an annual maintenance fee, which is 70%, and that is okay."
"On our last big SAP implementation project, we inserted an automation resource into the beginning of the project. Between automating regression processes, data staging, and using our automation to help repair cutover and conversion issues. We saved the project about $1,700,000."
"Worksoft has paid for itself fives times over."
"By using automation, it reduced about 75 percent of the time when compared to any other tool."
"We've saved over 80 percent in time savings."
"Our ROI is primarily a reduction in testing time. The testing, when we were doing it manually, was 30 to 40 percent of the project's cost."
"Saving money and better quality, these are the benefits of Certify."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
22%
University
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Retailer
6%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Construction Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise73
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
Digital.ai Continuous Testing is a solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times. One thing I noticed is that the initial setup and configuration can feel complex, especia...
What is your primary use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The main use case for Digital.ai Continuous Testing has been automating test execution as part of the CI/CD pipeline, especially for ensuring builds are stable before the release. For example, I us...
What advice do you have for others considering Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
If someone is considering using Digital.ai Continuous Testing, my advice would be to start with a clear workflow in mind. From my experience, it works best when you use it as part of a CI/CD pipeli...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Worksoft Certify?
I am not certain about the pricing of Worksoft Certify. What I heard from my peers is that it is costly, and clients will be investing more money in this software.
What needs improvement with Worksoft Certify?
Based on my experience working in Worksoft Certify and this web application, there are several things that do not work as expected in Worksoft.
 

Also Known As

Experitest Seetest, Experitest
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Samsung, American Express, Barclays, China Mobile, Citi, Cisco, McAfee
Kraft, Reliant Energy, Richemont, Applied Materials, Siemens PLM, Mosaic, Dow Corning, ebay, IBM, Accenture, Fortis BC, US Government, Southwest Airlines
Find out what your peers are saying about Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs. Worksoft Certify and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.