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

Testim 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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Testim
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
11th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
7th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Testim is 3.3%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 20.1%, up from 16.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

PiyushSingh - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable tool to help users take care of the implementation phases in their environment
There are a few minor areas where improvements are required, but they are not something that I can discuss at a high level. I will have to ask the team that uses Testim since they can give a better response to what requires improvement in the product. I only manage the team that uses Testim. I cannot be exactly described as an end user of the tool. There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it. There were some trial and error methods our company had to deal with while using the product's documentation, after which we were able to get through the setup phase. I want the documentation to have more information to help users with the setup process. I want the product to be more scalable in the future.
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 product is easy to use."
"The automating smoke and regression tests have become easier and handier and manual efforts are saved."
"The ease of learning and the small learning curve allowed us to scale the test scripts and the test suite quickly."
"We added Testim to our CI flow. It allows us to test only tasks that already passed sanity tests."
"The REST API features allowed integrated testing for select products to quickly make calls and test the UIs with API calls while the CLI allows us to matrix the grid function across browsers."
"I have seen reduced maintenance due to smart locators, as it automatically finds locators for us even with minor application changes."
"The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature."
"Testim introduces three services covering validation steps, eliminating the necessity to write complex code."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is the recovery and cleanup process. Suppose there is a list of test cases and one test case has failed, it should not impact the other test cases. We can reuse the same test case. We can change the configuration of parameters and then use the test cases on the same thing. So, that's a useful thing. Otherwise, we have to use the cleanup process. Another useful feature is to have our own library files. We can create our objects in the libraries and reuse them. There is no need to create duplicate data for that. They have been giving some enhancements recently which means integration is also there. They've integrated with different software like Jenkins, Bamboo. So, we can also create pipeline points. They have recently given SAP and everything, which is very useful."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"The platform's most valuable feature is model-based testing, which is effective for test case design and optimization."
"The most valuable feature is being able to create a test case by recording some scenarios and then leasing that task case to other scenarios."
"Object Identification Wizard."
"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."
"This tool has test data management capability along with test management."
"Good use in Agile workshops, where the person needs to conceptualize the tests before the developer provides the complete application interface."
 

Cons

"The UI could use a better design with a better user experience in mind."
"The API testing integration is a bit lacking and can be improved."
"Faster scripting would be beneficial, as test creation is faster now."
"There were some issues in the product's initial setup phase in regard to the area of documentation since it wasn't very easy to understand everything mentioned in it."
"There are common properties between multiple elements that we should be able to edit - such as 'when this step fails,' 'when to run this step,' and 'override timeout'. I should be able to update these properties if I select multiple elements."
"There is currently no room for improvement that I can identify as of now."
"I get a little bit confused while creating new branches."
"In the last couple of months, I have experienced some downtime where it wasn't working."
"Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation."
"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."
"The product's test case management functionality needs enhancement."
"Tricentis Tosca's performance could be better. Sometimes when we are remapping or when it is loading it can take a lot of time. There are free solutions that have better performance in this area."
"The product needs to improve object identification. The identify with properties and anchor methods work perfectly, while the by-index and image methods may face challenges."
"The Test Management options are still weak - improvement is outlined, but not yet visible. I"
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"I would like to see better integration with other testing tools."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool offers a fixed pricing model for our company."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools."
"The solution is not expensive."
"We have around 200 [concurrent] licenses and the cost around $1.4 million a year."
"Tricentis Tosca should improve its pricing. It is expensive."
"Although the product is slightly more expensive than tools, its automation capabilities and reduced scripting needs justify the cost."
"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."
"Tricentis Tosca is an expensive solution and there is an annual license required. The whole licensing process is confusing and it could be made easier."
"I rate the price of Tricentis Tosca a two out of five."
"Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis."
"Expensive, but for long-term projects, it is paying back."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
6%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Testim?
The tool's most valuable feature is the recently added AI feature.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Testim?
I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten compared to other tools.
What needs improvement with Testim?
More advanced AI-based features and features on the API side would help us create better end-to-end test suites.
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

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, salesforce, JFrog, USA Today, Globality
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 Testim vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,671 professionals have used our research since 2012.