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

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 (22nd), Test Management Tools (19th)
Tricentis Tosca
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (1st), Functional Testing Tools (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

DC
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.
PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features
The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.

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 feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"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."
"The scriptless automation tool is one of the important features."
"It has helped teams within our organization become more aware of the testing requirements in terms of risk and priority."
"This tool is very easy to use and I think that anyone can come in, having no experience with it, and within four to six months be comfortable with it."
"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."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated."
 

Cons

"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
"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."
"Technical support used to be better. It is now a bit difficult to reach out compared to previous experiences."
"A disadvantage of Tricentis Tosca is that you have to customize it according to your need, during the early stages of the software, particularly during upstream testing, before system and unit testing."
"I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step."
"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."
"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 Vision AI implementation works very slowly, affecting the speed of our work."
"Needs a UI to visualize the test case development."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
"​It is an expensive tool compared to other test automation tools. It has a lot of advantages over other tools."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is on the higher side."
"Although the product is slightly more expensive than tools, its automation capabilities and reduced scripting needs justify the cost."
"We have around 200 [concurrent] licenses and the cost around $1.4 million a year."
"Expensive, but for long-term projects, it is paying back."
"I would like to see better costing packs. There are several features but USD $11,000 for one license is expensive."
"I am satisfied with the cost."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Regression Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
870,697 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
8%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
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 Business22
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise72
 

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

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: October 2025.
870,697 professionals have used our research since 2012.