BrowserStack vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

BrowserStack and Tricentis are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.2, while Tricentis is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.0. BrowserStack holds a 11.2% mindshare in FT, compared to Tricentis’s 19.9% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 25 BrowserStack reviews

6,113 Views
5,107 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Tricentis Tosca

Read 109 Tricentis Tosca reviews

14,430 Views
8,012 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

Tricentis Tosca

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Tricentis Tosca and BrowserStack both compete in the test automation space. BrowserStack seems to have an advantage due to its broader device testing capabilities and cost-effectiveness for physical device alternatives.

Features: Tricentis Tosca offers scriptless automation, a model-based approach, and extensive technology support, including SAP and Oracle Apps. BrowserStack provides cross-browser and cross-device testing, manual testing capabilities with detailed logs, and a wide selection of devices for testing.

Room for Improvement: Tricentis Tosca needs to enhance upgrades for fewer disruptions, improve license management, and offer better visualization and integration with non-GUI apps. BrowserStack could improve integration with other frameworks, enhance stability, and address occasional connectivity issues.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Tricentis Tosca predominantly supports on-premises, hybrid, and public cloud environments. Its customer service receives mixed reviews. BrowserStack, accessible via public and private clouds, offers quick and efficient support, earning praise for its responsiveness.

Pricing and ROI: Tricentis Tosca's high pricing can be a barrier for smaller companies, though it provides significant ROI for long-term projects. BrowserStack, while still seen as costly by some, offers competitive pricing compared to physical test labs, providing ROI through testing efficiencies across numerous devices.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 842,296 peers since 2012

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

BrowserStack

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

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 March 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 11.2%, up from 11.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 19.9%, up from 16.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users

I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Read full review

Antonio Oteri

IT Telecom Quality Senior Tester at TIM

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."

"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."

"The main core concept behind this product is, it takes the overhead of maintaining all of your devices or particular computers. It continuously adds the latest devices that are coming into the market."

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

"It is a scalable solution."

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."

"The integration is very good."

"It's helpful for me to test on different devices."

More BrowserStack pros

"Good use in Agile workshops, where the person needs to conceptualize the tests before the developer provides the complete application interface."

"The most important feature is its ability to support the technical automation of specific clients that we cannot use with other tools."

"It offers many features, such as risk-based testing and scenario creation using Kafka."

"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."

"The use of automation is most valuable."

"It can provide all levels of testing from design to execution to reporting."

"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."

"It's been very helpful to have connectivity with mobile. The tool also identifies some of the actual changes from the recordings on the actual testing suite. That is something that I really like."

More Tricentis Tosca pros

Cons

"Sometimes BrowserStack is really slow and devices are not loading. it is really annoying and that's why we bought several newer devices because sometimes it's affecting us a lot."

"We had some execution issues."

"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."

"I would like for there to be more integration with BrowserStack and other platforms."

"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."

"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."

"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."

"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."

More BrowserStack cons

"The user management could improve in Tricentis Tosca because it is confusing. It would be better to have it in one place. Having to add it to the cloud and to a specific project can be a mess."

"The support we received from Tricentis Tosca was good, but it can improve."

"When using it with iOS devices, I cannot start automation directly and must use a remote machine."

"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."

"What needs to be improved in Tricentis Tosca is its centralized repository mechanism because it's not as flexible. The repository in the solution where you store the data and the script for test automation is quite an old-fashioned mechanism that could be improved."

"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."

"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."

"Tricentis Tosca could improve on the ease of use. There is a steep learning curve. The reporting section could be better and some of the new features could be simplified. Additionally, the user management of the client and the server are confusing. There should not be two."

More Tricentis Tosca cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"The price is fine."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."

"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."

"There are different types of licenses: enterprise or professional. The cost varies."

"It is an expensive tool compared to other test automation tools. It has a lot of advantages over other tools."

"A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros."

"I give the cost of Tricentis Tosca a six out of seven."

"The price of Tricentis Tosca is approximately Є10,000 for one license. However, it used to be much cheaper, but they changed their license structure. It used to be a structure where if you bought a license you would receive one year of free support and maintenance. Now they only have a yearly license, and that is expensive."

"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."

"I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to talk about the pricing, but it has some significant costs. For example, you have to pay a license and maintenance fee. Then the rest of the terms are negotiable. We have to consider what we need and what benefit we get from it."

"A competitor of Tricentis Tosca: Katalon Studio, is very similar and offers lower pricing, though Tricentis Tosca offers more features and benefits."

More Tricentis Tosca pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Energy/Utilities Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?

My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.

See all answers

What needs improvement with BrowserStack?

I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 33% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 24% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 20% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 3% of the time

Katalon Studio vs BrowserStack

Compared 2% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Katalon Studio vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 12% of the time

OpenText UFT One vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 11% of the time

Worksoft Certify vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 10% of the time

Testim vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 8% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 7% of the time

More Tricentis Tosca Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

March 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis Tosca

March 2025

Download Tricentis Tosca product report

Overview

BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

BrowserStack

Tricentis Tosca is primarily leveraged for test automation across web, SAP, API, and mainframe applications, offering robust support for both regression and functional testing.

Tricentis Tosca's test automation capabilities extend to front-end and back-end testing, including processes like RPA and UI-based regression tests on Microsoft Windows. It supports Agile environments with multiple applications, enabling Salesforce automation, API endpoints, and end-to-end automation workflows. Tosca caters to diverse testing needs, integrating well with tools like Jenkins and Bamboo, although upgrades and customizations present challenges. Licensing costs and performance issues during loading and scanning are concerns, along with substantial learning curves for new users. Enhanced AI features and better reporting are on users' wishlist.

What are the key features of Tricentis Tosca?

Tosca BI: Ensures data integrity and accuracy in business intelligence testing
Tosca Commander: Centralized control for easy test management and maintenance
Model-Based Test Automation: Facilitates test creation without scripting
Integration Capabilities: Works seamlessly with Jenkins and Bamboo for CI/CD
Diverse Application Support: Compatible with mobile, web, APIs, and SAP
Scriptless Nature: Simplifies usage and reduces maintenance efforts

What benefits should users consider?

Enhanced Automation: Streamlines testing processes, saving time and resources
Scalability: Adapts to growing demands within an organization
Test Management: Centralized control enhances efficiency and oversight
Ease of Use: Scriptless approach lowers the barrier to entry for users

Tricentis Tosca is implemented across various industries, serving sectors like finance, healthcare, and retail with test automation solutions to ensure application quality and reliability. Agile teams in these industries benefit from its multi-application support and ability to manage complex end-to-end testing workflows. The tool's integration capabilities are particularly useful in environments that rely on CI/CD pipelines, ensuring continuous testing and quick feedback loops.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG

HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca

February 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca report.

See our list of best Functional 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.