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

IBM Rational Performance Tester vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Rational Performance Te...
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (23rd)
Tricentis Tosca
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
107
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (1st), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

it_user323943 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sep 21, 2015
We can edit captured transactions and organize them by those for which we require performance metrics, but it lacks a set of manuals or guides that would take out some guess work.
It is used to capture and generate HTTP tests. The capture process is very easy. After this, we edited the captured transactions to organize them into the sections or transactions we require performance metrics for (i.e. splash page, user authentication, main pageload, logout, etc.). This editing process is easy to perform with the interface provided in Rational Performance Tester Finally, Rational Performance Tester has an import/export feature that has been extremely useful. We have used it to export our complete test library and import it into another Rational Performance Tester server with no loss or issues. This allows for platform test migrations and backup.
Antonio Oteri - PeerSpot reviewer
Sep 3, 2024
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

"It can support both web applications and mobile applications, and in certain cases, it can also support testing of desktop applications or software-based applications. You can write web applications, mobile applications, and software-based applications."
"Technical support is very good. I'm very satisfied with the assistance we've received so far."
"This tool has test data management capability along with test management."
"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."
"What I find valuable is that Tricentis is always refining the test methodology. They listen to feedback from the analysts about what the testing tool should do, and then Tricentis always implements it. So all the necessary testing functions are already implemented in their tools."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"We can also create customized functions. For example, if something isn't supported in Tricentis Tosca Commander, we can create our own function to integrate it with Tosca Commander, so we can utilize it and integrate with the macros."
"The tool can be handled without any knowledge in parameterisation, especially the TestCaseDesign which makes the tool mighty and stable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Tosca Commander."
"You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues."
 

Cons

"The solution is not easily scalable. If you want to extend the solution, you need to purchase a different kind of license. You also have to work with the IBM team to assist in scaling."
"There are some features that Micro Focus LoadRunner provides, but they are not available in IBM Rational Performance Tester. They should include such features. It can also have more reports similar to what HP provides. It might also need some improvement in terms of the tools and support for other technology areas. Certain technologies are not supported by every tool. They need to support all sorts of technologies and platforms on which web applications and mobile applications are built. They need complete support for all sorts of technologies."
"Tricentis Tosca could improve on its mobile automation solution."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"While the initial setup was straightforward, we required assistance with the configuration to ensure that everything was done correctly."
"The reporting function was lacking in usability and detail."
"It needs better integration with JIRA."
"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."
"You need to spend much more time learning the tool and how to use it, compared to others."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is much cheaper than Micro Focus LoadRunner. We need perpetual licenses. Support is included in the first sale. After that, you need to renew support every year."
"There are different types of licenses: enterprise or professional. The cost varies."
"The licensing cost for Tricentis Tosca is expensive. It has multiple features, but to use all of its features, you have to pay for additional licenses."
"It is expensive. There is also the training cost, but it does speed up the process. So, you get a return on investment."
"Tricentis Tosca is an expensive solution and there is an annual license required. The whole licensing process is confusing and it could be made easier."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the pricing a ten. The licensing model is based on a yearly basis."
"The tool is quite expensive."
"Pricing for Tricentis Tosca could be improved because it's very expensive."
"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 Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
15%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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.
 

Also Known As

Rational Performance Tester
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

andagon, Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
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 Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Regression Testing Tools. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.