Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Bitbar vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

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
25th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (17th)
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
109
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (1st), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 0.8%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 19.5%, up from 15.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

it_user1267398 - PeerSpot reviewer
Has the ability to use different frameworks for testing although it is lacking in capability options
Setup depends on how you are using the product. In our case, it was quite simple. We did it ourselves and it didn't take much time, maybe a day. We used one person per team for setup, usually an engineer or developer. For each team, we had one person to assist with deployment. We have multiple teams so each team had someone dealing with setup. We now have two people working in the company who deal with the maintenance of the solution.
Antonio Oteri - PeerSpot reviewer
Ability to automate tests across various platforms and simplifies test creation
From what I've seen with my colleagues who make the software selection, the prices for this software in Brazil are too expensive to be applied to anything but huge customers. I'm surprised because I was in charge of planning and control at the company before, when there was a manager there. Normally, the company has structural licenses that are based on the company they are selling to. I see that these companies cannot spend this money on Tricentis. I think Tosca is losing this type of market. They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies. The same happened in the past with SAP, which changed its policy and also made licenses for low.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"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."
"To me, what stands out the most about Tricentis Tosca is that even if I'm not a technical tester, I could pick up on how to use it very quickly because of the mechanisms of the tool, for example, its scanning mechanism. I'm not so technical, but I'm able to maneuver through Tricentis Tosca and derive capability. It's a user-friendly tool. It's not very complex."
"This solution is very easy to learn and any non-programmer or manual tester, with little experience in automation, can pick it up quite easily."
"This tool has test data management capability along with test management."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is the recovery and cleanup process. Suppose there is a list of test cases and one test case has failed, it should not impact the other test cases. We can reuse the same test case. We can change the configuration of parameters and then use the test cases on the same thing. So, that's a useful thing. Otherwise, we have to use the cleanup process. Another useful feature is to have our own library files. We can create our objects in the libraries and reuse them. There is no need to create duplicate data for that. They have been giving some enhancements recently which means integration is also there. They've integrated with different software like Jenkins, Bamboo. So, we can also create pipeline points. They have recently given SAP and everything, which is very useful."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"The Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
 

Cons

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"It can be quite expensive."
"In terms of areas for improvement, Tricentis has a variety of tools, even its test management tool called qTest. Tricentis Tosca does have integration with different Tricentis tools, but the integration is geared towards a larger organization perspective. For very small organizations that have minimal licenses, the integration needs to be improvised. For example, I belong to a smaller organization that has only one license, so the capability that the tool provides for integration isn't sufficient because my company needs to have separate workspaces. When Tricentis Tosca is going to be running, it is going to use that license, but my company wants another separate workspace to record, relay, and test. This is what my team has been struggling with, and the mechanism is probably there, but that needs more time and investigation, so I can't say that I'm one hundred percent certain that Tricentis Tosca, in terms of integration for a smaller organization is insufficient. Another area for improvement is that Tricentis Tosca is currently just a Windows-based tool which affects the market because nowadays, Windows isn't the only operating system, for example, there's also Apple or IOS that's moving much faster than Windows."
"With regard to areas of improvement, report customization should be easier. It would be good if Tosca could provide standard reports for at least 20 variants. At present, there are only three to four variants. The mobile engine needs to be faster and easier to use; it is a bit cumbersome. Also, the object identification in the mobile engine needs improvement. I would like to see easy-to-use customizations for reports in the next release."
"You need to spend much more time learning the tool and how to use it, compared to others."
"While the initial setup was straightforward, we required assistance with the configuration to ensure that everything was done correctly."
"Product quality has declined as it grows, and its updates aren't without fault. The process of resolving problems has slowed, and as it expands into other areas like NeoLoad and other testing tools, the product becomes more complicated. It used to be a small firm with a clear goal, but as it grows, the quality has been affected."
"Tricentis Tosca currently does not support any mobile testing and can be improved."
"I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked."
"I am satisfied with the cost."
"It is expensive. There is also the training cost, but it does speed up the process. So, you get a return on investment."
"I give the cost of Tricentis Tosca a six out of seven."
"A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros."
"It is expensive."
"The pricing is high, but altogether it offers you the ability to automate all sorts of applications: desktop, web, mobile, etc."
"They are probably more expensive than other comparable tools, but you also get the full suite of testing tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
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...
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 do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?
For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.
 

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
HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.