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

PractiTest vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

PractiTest
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (21st), Test Management Tools (16th)
Tricentis Tosca
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (1st), Functional Testing Tools (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

DC
Test Team Lead at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Flexible and intuitive with easy reporting, and good support that is instantly available through chat
It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time. This is not an issue if you only have one bug tracker but we can potentially use different tools for different projects. As an example, if you connect PractiTest to Jira for one project, that's the one you have to use for all projects. We had a requirement to connect with Jira for one project, and a different tool for another, project but it was unable to accommodate that unfortunately. I would therefore like to see it easier to integrate with bug tracking tools at project level which would give each project the opportunity to use a different bug tracker if required.
Jayachandrap In - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Architect at MOURI Tech
Implemented efficient enterprise-level test automation and identified areas for integration and support improvement
In the future, I would like to see improvements in Tricentis Tosca regarding the integration of test management tools, as the current process is very complex; for example, integrating with Jira Xray presents challenges, and there is not an easiest solution available right now. In terms of additional features I would like to see in the future, the self-healing process in Tricentis Tosca has to improve compared to other tools, as its current self-healing capacity is not that good. The self-healing process should automatically handle any changes in web applications; for instance, if properties change inside the application, the tool should automatically take care of it, unlike other tools such as Mabl and TestComplete that have better self-healing capabilities.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Converting a couple of these test plans into PractiTest was amazing and made a world of difference."
"This is a good solution for a global transnational company."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"Since we started using this product, our organization's testing functionality has really improved."
"Helped organise the manual test cases so they were documented correctly, which was invaluable as it allowed for reviewing and improving of test scripts so they could be followed by a number of different people which helped with resourcing."
"Technical support of PractiTest is awesome. They are always ready to help in any time zone, which makes them stand out from others."
"In addition, we found PractiTest very user-friendly and customizable."
"PractiTest gives us the opportunity to control the testing process efficiently and saves us a lot of time that we had to spend while using other tools."
"The use of automation is most valuable."
"The features I find most valuable in Tricentis Tosca are that it's the easiest way to build the scripts and to do the CI/CD process; using Tricentis Tosca is very useful and easy."
"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."
"Image recognition: It has allowed us to automate a GUI section of our product which involves drawing different topologies."
"It is easy to automate tasks, highly flexible, straightforward to learn, and easy to maintain."
"The solution has improved our time to release on production; everything is automated now, which makes everything move faster."
"I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten as I am satisfied with it."
"Tricentis Tosca has completely met our requirements."
 

Cons

"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time."
"Needs to improve adding the ability to run tests multiple times and setting different parameters."
"Yes, there are times when server is very slow in response."
"It does not offer server installation, only software as a service."
"There are some features that I would like added: an option to export a part of tests with steps."
"PractiTest practically requires a lot of sandboxing, demos with their team, and online tutorials."
"I would like a better user interface."
"It can be quite expensive."
"The technical support services are generally good, though there are areas for improvement regarding response time and overall competence."
"There have been some setbacks because of upgrades."
"The solution is expensive."
"Tricentis Tosca’s technical support could be improved."
"The record and play is still a new feature and while SAP has been added to the latest version, it is still lacking usefulness for common repository setups."
"The source controls that are in Tricentis Tosca have some problems. For example, if you use Selenium or use Java-based application, it's easy to match code from two developers. However, if you're a developer and going to look at Tricentis Tosca, it's very difficult to use the source control measure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
"There are two licenses: single user and multiple user. A multiple-user license means that several people can work together on one project and collaborate on code stored in a central location. A single-user license is for people working alone on a one particular application. It's much cheaper than a multi-user workspace. If you are getting a large volume of licenses for an enterprise, you can probably negotiate a discount, but I'm not sure about that."
"Tosca is expensive. I don't see small and medium customers going for it. It's always large enterprises that have a big pocket. It is very expensive as compared to the other tools that we have in the market. They should reduce the price by half, and if they do that, they would do better business. From the competition perspective, other solutions are at a pretty similar level. UiPath is also very expensive. One thing that I always wanted was a short-term consumption license. With Tricentis, the biggest challenge is that you have to go for a minimum of one year license, and they also try to sell you a three-year license. It would be good if people can get a three-month or four-month consumption license."
"I rate the price of Tricentis Tosca a two out of five."
"I give the cost of Tricentis Tosca a six out of seven."
"I would like to see better costing packs. There are several features but USD $11,000 for one license is expensive."
"My understanding is that it's an expensive product, although I don't know the specifics with regards to pricing."
"If you are purchasing less than five licenses, then the pricing is high. On a scale from one to ten, with one being low and ten being high pricing, I would rate this solution at eight."
"A competitor of Tricentis Tosca: Katalon Studio, is very similar and offers lower pricing, though Tricentis Tosca offers more features and benefits."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
906,829 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
8%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise1
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise75
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis Tosca?
The pricing for Tricentis Tosca is extremely high, and I rate it as ten in terms of expense. It is really pricey in the market, making it more suitable for large enterprises rather than small or me...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Orchestrated Service Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman
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, Katalon Studio, OpenText and others in Regression Testing Tools. Updated: July 2026.
906,829 professionals have used our research since 2012.