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

PractiTest vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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 (22nd), Test Management Tools (15th)
Tricentis Tosca
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
114
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.
AKSHAYRATHI - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior engineer at Nagarro
End-to-end regression automation has accelerated delivery and now secures complex test data
I think Tosca can be improved, particularly in AI capabilities because right now Tosca does not have any strong API capabilities. It has some AI features in the newer version, but many organizations have not adopted these due to version-specific problems, as some are still using older versions. From an AI point of view, they can enhance reliability since the world is moving towards AI, and every tool must be integrated. While Tosca has made attempts, I have not used them and they are not widely adopted, so they are stuck in the testing phase in my organization. I would also mention that while I am currently using Tosca Mobile, the loading part and connectivity issues need improvement. They should better integrate AI features that are already present but not widely used across many organizations. Reliability on the AI aspect needs enhancement for practical application. From the perspective of governance and security, I believe Tosca can develop its own LLM or leverage third-party LLMs while maintaining security and risk management regarding client data. Many companies prefer using Tosca due to data security, which is crucial. An in-house LLM could significantly enhance its debugging power and provide helpful solutions upon test case failure.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"This is a good solution for a global transnational company."
"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."
"Since we started using this product, our organization's testing functionality has really improved."
"Converting a couple of these test plans into PractiTest was amazing and made a world of difference."
"I like how the modules are set up, particularly how you can use the screens you're automating. This automation helps save both time and money because we use less test capacity regarding personnel."
"As a codeless automation tool, the product offers a user-friendly experience without requiring extensive coding knowledge. Users can easily handle various applications, including web applications, SAP applications, Windows applications, and even Salesforce applications, without manual coding."
"Very user-friendly and the low code automation is really helpful."
"Improves the software quality in production by finding more defects with automated test sets, before transporting developments to production."
"The solution has improved our time to release on production; everything is automated now, which makes everything move faster."
"The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Tosca can go through platforms to make end-to-end testing across CRM, billing, provisioning, order management flow, and databases to check for errors."
 

Cons

"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."
"PractiTest practically requires a lot of sandboxing, demos with their team, and online tutorials."
"It does not offer server installation, only software as a service."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time."
"There are some features that I would like added: an option to export a part of tests with steps."
"Because of expensive licenses, if your company is new to the market, do not start a business using Tosca if you expect slow growth - use cheaper solutions instead, and switch to Tosca once you are overwhelmed with projects and work."
"So far, all our issues have had to do with our unfamiliarity with the product."
"Browser compatibility (probably solved in the newest versions). Version 8 of Tosca had weak compatibility with automation via browsers."
"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."
"The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
"The document object model or some aspects of it has a bit of a learning curve."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
"The pricing of the solution comes as part of our Tosca bundle."
"There is an annual cost for Tricentis."
"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."
"Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked."
"Although the product is slightly more expensive than tools, its automation capabilities and reduced scripting needs justify the cost."
"I am satisfied with the cost."
"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."
"The tool is expensive. It has become overpriced, especially after Tricentis Tosca grew as a company. Initially, we bought a license with an annual support fee, which wasn't too expensive. However, they changed the model, and now we have to purchase a license yearly, which has become quite costly."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

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, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Regression Testing Tools. Updated: September 2026.
913,683 professionals have used our research since 2012.