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

Telerik Test Studio vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 16, 2025

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

Telerik Test Studio
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
24th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
25th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (14th)
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Telerik Test Studio is 1.5%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 12.9%, down from 20.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis Tosca12.9%
Telerik Test Studio1.5%
Other85.6%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Chirag N M - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Quality Engineer at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Supports multiple platforms and identifies elements in a good way
Instead of Telerik Test Studio, I'd recommend writing test cases in .Net so that in the future, if you move away from Telerik Test Studio to another tool, it would be easier for you. Your current code would be reusable. You won't have to change your test cases much. We wrote our code in a separate IDE, which was Visual Studio, and internally, we had the infrastructure to interact with Telerik Test Studio. All the internal logic that we needed for our purpose was implemented in .NET, and we used Telerik Test Studio for tests. I'd rate Telerik Test Studio an eight out of ten.
reviewer2740515 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Software Engineer 2 at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Automation test development becomes accessible and effective for functional testers
Tricentis Tosca is a codeless tool, making it easy for everyone to understand the transition of how to develop scenarios or test cases. In Tricentis Tosca, analyzing failures is straightforward because every time it fails somewhere, I get the screenshot, which helps me analyze how and why it failed. It has all the modules, including some pre-built ones that can be reused efficiently. Compared to other code tools such as Selenium, where I used to develop one script in one day, with Tricentis Tosca I can easily develop one script in four hours or three hours, saving four to five hours in a day.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The scalability is a valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca."
"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."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"Overall, I rate Tricentis Tosca as a ten out of ten."
"The most important feature is its ability to support the technical automation of specific clients that we cannot use with other tools."
"One notable feature is its ability to handle negative XPath healing processes. If one XPath fails, Tosca can utilize backup XPaths to ensure test cases do not fail due to locator issues, thereby focusing on identifying application-side issues, which is the ultimate goal."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
 

Cons

"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step."
"More and more artificial intelligence (AI) is coming in. So, some amount of AI to create natural language processing (NLP)-based test cases and manage defects would be very helpful. This is because the technologies have evolved in the last five to six months, so there is a potential opportunity there."
"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."
"The reporting function was lacking in usability and detail."
"The integration with mobile testing could be useful."
"They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies."
"I would say the reporting part of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is fair so I rate it an eight out of ten."
"They are probably more expensive than other comparable tools, but you also get the full suite of testing tools."
"Expensive, but for long-term projects, it is paying back."
"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."
"I rate the price of Tricentis Tosca a two out of five."
"The price of the tool is a problem for a lot of Brazilian clients or Latino clients, as it is expensive. Where I work, if one is low price and ten is high price, I rate the tool's price as a ten out of ten."
"In terms of the licensing costs for Tricentis Tosca, we are spending more or less $70,000 per year. We have a very complex mechanism because there are some business users and some BI users, so the licensing structure is not simple, but support is included."
"​It is an expensive tool compared to other test automation tools. It has a lot of advantages over other tools."
"The tool's pricing is lower than that of other automation tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
18%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
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

Fox, Chicco, BNP Paribas, eBay, Coca Cola, AT&T
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 Telerik Test Studio vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.