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

Qt Squish vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
Qt Squish reduced manual testing time, enabled agile cycles, improved efficiency, and optimized processes with stable automation suites.
Sentiment score
7.1
Tricentis Tosca significantly reduced tests, boosted ROI, enhanced efficiency, yet smaller companies found it costly compared to local options.
For the part that has been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.9
Qt Squish's customer service is efficient and knowledgeable, with quick responses, but video support can be expensive.
Sentiment score
6.8
Tricentis Tosca support is generally responsive and helpful, but some users experience delays and desire improved efficiency.
There is no way to mark the importance or criticality of incidents when creating them.
Response through chat has been replaced by chatbots, which has impacted the experience.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
Qt Squish is praised for scalability, especially with floating licenses, but some face minor issues like image recognition glitches.
Sentiment score
7.3
Tricentis Tosca is highly scalable, adaptable for extensive testing, praised for end-to-end automation and suitable for large enterprises.
With one license, just one user or one test scenario can be run at a time.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
Users report high stability with Qt Squish, experiencing minimal issues, which are quickly resolved by support and updates.
Sentiment score
7.4
Tricentis Tosca is reliable but can face performance issues with large projects, network instability, and licensing challenges.
I find stability issues when using the Vision AI feature; Tricentis Tosca is not very stable.
 

Room For Improvement

Qt Squish needs improvements in object identification, testing stability, integration, and enhanced support for non-Qt applications while addressing pricing and speed issues.
Tricentis Tosca needs improvements in usability, cost, test features, integration, and ease of learning for new users.
If you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java.
Moving to a cloud-based application rather than a desktop one could improve Tosca.
The Vision AI implementation works very slowly, affecting the speed of our work.
 

Setup Cost

Qt Squish receives mixed reviews for its pricing, with high costs and inflexible licensing compared to other tools.
Tricentis Tosca is costly for SMEs, with annual licenses up to Є20,000, but deals are possible for large enterprises.
For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.
A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros.
For enterprise customers, the cost is manageable because it provides solutions for multiple applications they want to automate.
 

Valuable Features

Qt Squish is a versatile UI testing tool praised for cross-platform support, Python compatibility, and seamless CI integration.
Tricentis Tosca provides user-friendly, scriptless test automation with model-based testing, handling complex scenarios for efficient, flexible testing.
For the parts that have been automated in Qt, not everything is suitable for automation.
It allows for drag-and-drop functionality and demo automation in SAP-based applications, which can be challenging with other automation tools.
The most useful features of Tricentis Tosca include API scanning, basic web application automation, and data validation capabilities.
 

Categories and Ranking

Qt Squish
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
20
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
109
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of Qt Squish is 3.0%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 22.8%, up from 19.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Luc Vangrunderbeeck - PeerSpot reviewer
Testing solution supports Java testing with good reliability
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need the Qt version of Java. You need to set up some special environment variables to be able to do that.
Antonio Oteri - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
22%
Computer Software Company
17%
Healthcare Company
8%
Transportation Company
7%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for froglogic Squish?
I'm aware of the price from three or four years ago, and it depends on the number of users. For the developer license, it is about $5200 a year.
What needs improvement with froglogic Squish?
There is nothing you can do for almost every application. If you do it for a single version, it is rather easy. However, if you want to run it for different versions of the software, then you need ...
What is your primary use case for froglogic Squish?
I am not really using the solution during development, however, for regression and automatic regression tests, I am using it. I use it to do visual Qt, which focuses on the GUI part of the applicat...
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.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

froglogic Squish
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Google, Nokia, Pfizer, Siemens, Synopsys, Airbus, Boeing, Mercedes Benz, Disney, Shell, Reuters, Vodafone, XILINX, GE, Ericsson
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 Qt Squish vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.