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

Digital.ai Continuous Testing vs Worksoft Certify comparison

 

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
10th
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 (3rd)
Worksoft Certify
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
81
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Digital.ai Continuous Testing is 1.3%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Worksoft Certify is 3.2%, 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 Certify3.2%
Digital.ai Continuous Testing1.3%
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

"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."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a very positive impact in terms of efficiency and quality."
"Digital.ai Continuous Testing has had a pretty positive impact on the organization, especially in terms of speed and reliability."
"Experitest is one of the only companies to offer a real device on the cloud to perform testing. They also provide quality documentations that help you navigate and maximize the solution."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable part of Experitest is the number of real devices on which the test is run."
"We have been able to increase our overall testing maturity and test automation coverage."
"Worksoft Certify has improved my organization by initially enabling us to transition from manual testers to automation, enhancing productivity by 50%."
"This solution has enabled us to automate in order to tremendously save time."
"It's script-free, which is really important for our end users because we are usually dealing with colleagues who are not developers and who do not always have the technical background of developing and scripting. It's very useful that there is a nice UI and the tool is script-free."
"Certify integrates with other tools and it works very well with other machine testing applications."
"I can confirm that Worksoft Certify brings measurable benefits in terms of cost saving, time saving, resource saving, and efficiency improvements in my projects."
"It is a pretty easy tool to use as far as automated testing tools go."
"We save probably 50 percent of our time, the tool does what it's supposed to do, and we are able to actually work."
 

Cons

"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."
"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 would also like to see more videos and descriptions that could make installation more efficient."
"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."
"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."
"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 solid tool, but there are a few things that can be frustrating at times."
"I believe that it could be more stable. During times when something is not working, it is difficult to find the solution."
"In the past, when we've tried to automate some of our web apps, it has not been as robust. If there were one thing that could be improved, it's interaction with web applications. The issue we were running into is that it was harder to identify the objects than it is with some of the other architectured applications."
"Worksoft Certify needs improvement on customization of reporting and how you report final outcomes."
"Better automation capability would be helpful."
"It is very easy to use, but there are some places where they need to improve their security. E.g., the BPP tool is just a URL, which does not ask you for a username and password. Anyone can login and can see it."
"As part of our weekly regression, we wanted to use Execution Manager. However, from 2017 until March 2021, Execution Manager was not working as expected in our enrollment. It could have been better. If Execution Manager had worked well, then we could have doubled our productivity. Unfortunately, it had problems."
"We ran into some issues with the version that we were on during the initial setup. We ran into a bug on one version, then they upgraded us to a new version, and we got hit with another bug."
"One feature that we have been asking for has been to treat tests as code and store the source code for tests in a configuration management tool. Right now, for version control of testing, it's all internally within the tool. If we have a test of a business process and want to revive that test, our methodology now is purely manual work. We go into the tool, create a copy of the existing test, and call the next one: v2. Now, we have two of them and the only way you can tell them apart is by its naming convention."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"We make monthly payments. The cost is dependent on the number of devices we intend to support."
"The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker."
"I think they came out with a different type of licensing specifically for testing. Therefore, you don't have to use a more expensive user license, you can use an automation license. So potentially, if we had 100 use cases, we could spin up a 100 different machines, have them all run and be done in five minutes. That would be the goal, but I don't know if that would actually succeed or not."
"The license cost is quite high. This might not be a consideration for a large company, but it will be for a small company. E.g., Tricentis (their competitor) offers certain exclusive use cases where a company can use it in a certain way, so this is another option that companies consider."
"The tool is not really good at all because you need to purchase some additional tools."
"We have seen ROI by being able to free up and give time back to the business for other value-added work."
"The initial investment is probably a little high. It was a little hard for me to sell, but it was a one-shot deal and that's why it's so high. All we are doing now is paying annual maintenance, which we don't have to do if we don't want upgrades, but we do."
"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."
"It is costly. It is a bit more expensive than Tricentis Tosca and other tools. If they reduce its price going forward and have partnerships with other vendors, it will grow like anything."
"We no longer need ten people sitting and manually testing something. We can just have one person running the entire regression automation testing suite, and this has saved us dollars."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
University
17%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Energy/Utilities Company
10%
Retailer
8%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

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 Business16
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise67
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Digital.ai Continuous Testing?
The price is reasonable for our company, but I'm not the decision-maker.
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...
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 aware that Worksoft Certify is not free, but I do not know the exact price, and I think it is a bit pricey. However, Worksoft Certify is a great tool, and I think the money that you will spend...
What needs improvement with Worksoft Certify?
In my early experience using Worksoft Certify as a beginner, there were some cases where I would capture an object. Since we were working in a similar sandbox with multiple resources, sometimes the...
 

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: April 2026.
893,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.