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

Bitbar vs Worksoft Certify comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 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

Bitbar
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
30th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (10th)
Worksoft Certify
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
89
Ranking in other categories
API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 1.4%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Worksoft Certify is 2.9%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Worksoft Certify2.9%
Bitbar1.4%
Other95.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1288116 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Digital & Cognitive Services at a tech company with 11-50 employees
A testing platform with a good API for apps, but pricing is complicated
I like that the AI Testbot is a near-zero code application for testing. For this use case, the function is good. The services are robust. Game testing and the API for apps are also good. From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied.
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 feature that I like the most is that you can use different frameworks, whether it's APM or something else, and you don't need to worry about the framework."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied."
"The overall product is awesome for device fragmentation, but not for automation."
"Automation using Worksoft Certify has saved our testing times by 40% to 50%."
"The decoupling of the test scripts from the data and the application is a nice feature. When you are creating test scripts, for example, for a web application, you have to learn about Worksoft and how the controls of a screen can be interpreted by Worksoft. For that purpose, you create so-called maps. These maps are loosely coupled to your scripts, which means if the application is changed, the control will be changed from an identifier. You don't need to rework the entire script. You only need to do these adjustments in the map, and then you can automatically reuse the scripts. So, it is really a smart move to have the decoupling of scripts, maps, and data."
"I have not seen any stability issues."
"We were able to use Worksoft to automate all of the actions that we would have to take after an SAP refresh. This way we do the refresh, then that night or right afterwards, we run the Worksoft script and it resets all of our testing users. This sets them up with the right access, the right approvals, and just sets up everything on the back-end so we can do our scripts the next night."
"With autotesting, we have been able to eliminate duplication of test cases across those four 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."
"Prior to Worksoft, there were three different individuals within the company who worked collectively for about three years trying to automate just one of our smoke tests for our point of sale system, but with Worksoft, we have been able to automate six of our smoke tests in four months."
"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, and we are able to do a lot of operations even with the solution being completely scriptless, which is a large advantage compared with other automation tools."
"Compared with my previous experience of working with Selenium, Java, and Playwright, I found a very good feature in Worksoft Certify where I don't need to change the XPaths."
 

Cons

"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Improvement of the product could be made by running the dashboard part, it gets stuck sometimes."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Some stages of its automation is not working correctly and I need to make changes in the code created by Testdroid."
"One feature that could be added to Capture 2.0 is generating a PDF file from your capture, so you can see your screenshots and steps."
"What I dislike about Worksoft Certify is that if I have complex web applications or complex requirements, the scripting becomes difficult and the efficiency is also low for complex projects."
"From the features perspective, I find that there are functionalities missing in Worksoft Certify at the moment that I would like to see included in the future."
"With the codeless process automation across packaged applications, once in a while, if we get a weird application that's not widely used, it gets a little stickier. First, the software has to learn the fields, so you have to identify all the fields. Once you do that, as long as there isn’t any non-standard code in the application, then it works fine. But there's that one step that you have to do, a step you don't have to do with SAP and Salesforce, for example."
"Upgrading Certify takes a lot of time and effort, which is like a small project by itself."
"I would like to know which version of Worksoft Certify is being used and how the tools are going to work."
"If any AI-powered features are included, that would be great. We've already seen the beginning of self-healing capabilities, but additional integrations with AI would be beneficial."
"The user interface isn’t the best."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"Worksoft Certify is priced higher than most tools."
"If we do one manual process, it could take approximately two hours. The same process using Worksoft probably takes ten minutes."
"This solution is expensive."
"This solution has enabled our clients to automate and save time (approximately 40 to 50 percent)."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The tool is not really good at all because you need to purchase some additional tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
15%
Construction Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise73
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Testdroid
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rovio, Paf, Supercell, NITRO Games, Seriously, AVG, Google, Bosch, Yahoo, Microsoft, Yandex, Mozilla, eBay, PayPal, TESCO, Cisco WebEx, Facebook, LinkedIn, skype, Subway
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 Bitbar vs. Worksoft Certify and other solutions. Updated: October 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.