We performed a comparison between Micro Focus UFT One and Tricentis Tosca based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Tricentis Tosca seems to be a superior solution. All other things being more or less equal, our reviewers found that Micro Focus UFT One’s automation capabilities could be improved.
"The best feature of UFT by far is its compatibility with a large variety of products, tools and technologies. It is currently a challenge to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully automate tests for so many projects and environments."
"The initial setup is relatively easy."
"It's not only web-based but also for backend applications; you can also do the integration of the applications."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files."
"One advantage of Micro Focus UFT is that it is more compatible with SAP, Desktop ECC SAP, than S/4HANA."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The entire framework is very useful. It's easily integrable with Excel."
"The most valuable feature is being able to create a test case by recording some scenarios and then leasing that task case to other scenarios."
"The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"One notable feature is its ability to handle negative XPath healing processes. If one XPath fails, Tosca can utilize backup XPaths to ensure test cases do not fail due to locator issues, thereby focusing on identifying application-side issues, which is the ultimate goal."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"Tricentis Tosca is a really cool tool that you don't have to be technical to use it. Additionally, the solution is easy to use. The modules, libraries, and reusable are in an efficient way to update all the tests. I find it spot on with that. We also started using the design which we switched from Excel. The design was superior to Excel."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is it is a completely scriptless automation tool, which I liked a lot. They keep on continuously improving their tools, wherever we are facing any challenges they are able to provide a solution for it. It is easy to learn, everyone can easily read and understand what is happening with the scripts. Any business user or function tester can use the tool efficiently. This is a complete solution package."
"We have to automate thousands of test cases and complete end-to-end SAP on business processes. To manually execute these tasks, it would take us at least two months. By automating these tasks using Tosca, now it takes five to 10 days maximum. Tricentis Tosca is a codeless or scriptless automation tool."
"The speed could be improved because a large test suite takes some time to execute."
"The solution is expensive."
"The artificial intelligence functionality is applicable only on the web, and it should be expanded to cover non-web applications as well."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to friction-free continuous testing across the software life cycle, as a local installation is required to run UFT."
"ScratchBook execution needs to be improved as Tosca crashes multiple times."
"It would be of great help if they can fix the loading or performance issues. Sometimes, when I create the test case folder and test cases, it feels like it has loading or performance issues. When passing the objects, we can't sometimes find the exact element. We need to find out that exact location and just give the path for that, and then it works. In the pipeline, when creating Jenkins, we create the list execution for passing the execution list to the commander. I feel it is a bit late, by a fraction of seconds. I first thought it could be my mistake or a setting issue, but I worked on that, and it's not a mistake or a setting issue."
"While the initial setup was straightforward, we required assistance with the configuration to ensure that everything was done correctly."
"The product needs to improve object identification. The identify with properties and anchor methods work perfectly, while the by-index and image methods may face challenges."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"The main area where there is room for improvement is how they do upgrades. Going through this current upgrade, we were delayed a month because we are using a third-party tool. It's called Tosca Connect by Tasktop. When this latest upgrade broke that relationship between the two, it took Tricentis a month to come back with a workable solution... Their whole upgrade process needs to be better and cleaner, from an end-user standpoint."
"The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman, Testim and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression 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.
Both products are very useful but it really depends on what you need to test and who is building the tests. We recently chose UFT One over Tosca in a specific use case where identifying images inside a map was needed. UFT uses both OCR and Image recognition where in Tosca you would have to identify specific pixels and those pixels could move depending on what device you were using.
From a test building perspective, I feel it is easier to build tests in UFT One than in Tosca. UFT One also gives you the ability to develop tests by either writing code or using the record and convert to code option (Allows developers and Business users to work together to build/update the same test).
If you can provide more info on what you are testing and your key drivers, I can try and give more info on what tool may be best.
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing.
MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well suited for CI integrations. We liked it, in particular, because it integrates greatly with other platforms, like .net, QC and Jenkins. An added advantage was the multi-device support.
One of the best advantages of MicroFocus is that it integrates with legacy web technologies and even Windows client applications. Finally, MicroFocus supports cross-browser testing. Regardless of many features, including a test combinations generator and insight recording, it is relatively easy to learn.
That being said, it doesn’t support multiple formats of reporting. For now, UFT only supports exporting reports in HTML or PDF. MicroFocus should allow exporting to Excel, CSV, XML, and other formats. There is a bit of performance degradation of the test environment when executing automation scripts continuously for a long time. The execution can be inconsistent sometimes, and scripting takes a long time. Another downside is the high licensing price.
Tricentis Tosca is an integrated testing solution that includes testing automation and case design approach, risk-based testing, test data management, and service virtualization. The best feature is its versatility in helping both web and desktop applications. It is very reliable and stable. Another great feature is that you can reuse test cases.
The platform supports multiple technologies and devices. It is truly end-to-end. Because it is scriptless, anyone can learn to use it.
As much as we like it, there are downsides to Tosca, too. The price is one of them. It runs a bit expensive, but it is worth it. The test design section is complicated to learn, and the UI takes time to get used to.
Conclusions
Tosca is a better solution in terms of usability and versatility. MicroFocus is better for organizations with legacy web applications.