Tricentis Tosca Reviews

• Complete or partial test automation
• Methodology for reducing the number of test cases needed along with high risk coverage
• Easy way to prioritize requirements
• Ease of test case maintenance
• It can be used by people with no previous programming knowledge
• Agile

Test case automation and ease of test case maintenance through Tosca has reduced the manpower needed for testing, reducing the time needed for testing, and has thus saved money. Management of projects also got a lot easier.

• They could improve scanning of the applications under test
• Useful tips could be improved
• Better and graeter number of examples in manuals
• Reduced cost of licenses

I've used it since March 2014.

Sometimes it is a bit slow when the project is too big and too complex. If there are custom controls being used, sometimes a scanning of the system under test lasts longer than it should.

Medium to high. (always quick to response, but sometimes not that helpful).

Medium to high. (always quick to response, but sometimes not that helpful).

We previously used HP Application Lifecycle Management for manual testing. We chose to switch to Tosca because of the test case automation and it offers easier management.

Initial setup is pretty much straightforward, but the licenses need to be managed separately the after setup.

We implement it through an in-house team.

ROI is high because of the market that is switching more and more to agile, automated testing, and our company also develops add-on for Tosca.

There are four types of licenses available, and you should use one that best suits your resources and preconditions. 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.

The test automation function is independent of the technology used by the drag & drop functionality.

The project that I used this product on did not have a professional test management approach within the test activities they had for their IT systems. That's why they implemented automated testing with Tosca Testsuite, and the manual effort got reduced. At the same time, the replication of test processes was raised by up to 100%. This made the bug analysis for their software development much easier.

There's not much. The release cycles of the vendor are much faster than what companies can implement. Sometimes, out of the box functionalities are reduced to reduce the tools complexity, but then customers do miss some functionalities they had in the past.

I've used it for two years.

Not part of my job, but during the upgrade our IT departmend faced several issues in the installation process of the new version.

Similar issues within the execution of automated tests occurred, but they were solved within the configuration settings and/or with the help of the vendor.

No issues encountered.

Best I have ever seen.

Best I have ever seen.

Not as part of this project, but I used HP Quality Center as a test tool before. I found it much easier to learn as Tosca Testsuite has been devleoped for users with a very good and intuitive user interface.

The main installation was already done when I started. The setup of work areas, and multi-user workspaces is very easy and straightforward. Different options are described very well in the user manual.

Not sure, but I think the basic installation was done by a vendor team.

It's hard to calculate because there is no base available to compare with. However, test automation and management setup can be done very fast, and it has lower real costs when compared to doing a manual test execution for three or four times.

The department did an evaluation between HP Quality Center and TOSCA before my assignment started. The main reasons for choosing Tosca Testsuite was its easier usability as well as lower costs.

Check the efforts of your manual testing per application every year, and then decide on what, and how, to automate. Usually there should be an ROI at the latest, after using Tosca Testsuite for two years.

For our applications, it makes the test cases. So far, we have been quite happy with it. So, we don't have any complaints.

We build the test cases, then we just need run it by one person to get feedback right away. Otherwise, it would require planning with certain testers.

Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people.

• It needs better integration with JIRA.
• I would like a better user interface.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

We are satisfied with the support of Tricentis so far.

Setup wasn't that straightforward; it was more complex. It all depends on the environment, because there were a lot of errors on our applications. Therefore, it wasn't an easy setup for us. 

It took time to begin setting up for the first time because it's not a regular setup. It took us a week to set up.

We hired a consultant to figure out all the tools in our company and how they fit in our company before we purchased the solution.

We also evaluated HPE, IBM Rational Functional Tester, and Ranorex. However, for us, Tosca was the perfect choice.

Figure out your requirements and environment.

We had the impression Tosca would be the perfect fit for us. We did a proof of concept test with all our applications, Tosca was able to work with them and drive the proof of concept goal. Finally, we made a decision a year ago to work with Tricentis Tosca. We are quite happy with the product. 

• Scriptless automation
• Ease of using
• Object Identification Wizard
• Business parameters
• Steering controls

• Our organization is completely based on automation of the activities.
• All the projects based on different technologies, such as SAP and Salesforce, are automated using Tosca.
• SMEs just need to run the scripts developed by automation testers to validate the intended behavior.
• We also use batches to schedule automation activities, which does not need any user attention.
• Hence, automation testers can run the scripts as well as work on the new work at the same time, resulting into increased productivity.

Security, UI, and basic performance improvements could be done to the product to enhance its use.

Six months.

No.

No.

Good.

Selenium WebDriver requires good skillset of coding. However, TOSCA is scriptless, hence anyone can learn it easily.

The online training material offered by Tricentis is very straightforward to get started with it.

The pricing is high, but altogether it offers you the ability to automate all sorts of applications: desktop, web, mobile, etc.

Yes. Selenium WebDriver and QTP.

I will recommend using TOSCA to all users who want to automate their applications or who want to work daily without any hassle.

Ability to test Java Swing UI on business application.

It was the only way to organize and support automation testing process for our re-insurance tool for underwriters.

Browser compatibility (probably solved in the newest versions).

Version 8 of Tosca had weak compatibility with automation via browsers. Firefox and IE produced issues, unexpected quits during execution of automation test, and during automated clicks at elements. Also, execution of tests was possible at one thread only (at the same time other instruments for automation, like Selenium, allow using multiple threads). But probably some of mentioned problems are not actual for up to date versions of Tosca.

No issues.

Not all of UI elements were managed correctly by regular Tosca functions, we was forced to use Custom Controls for doing that.

Eight out of 10.

A bit complex.

We were forced to use a custom version of IBM Java and custom controls for managing of Java Swing UI elements. Some time was required to understand how to link all this stuff with Tosca (most of our questions were ultimately answered in Tosca documentation). Time for first setups was three to four hours, per employee’s laptop, but after some attempts it was shortened to one hour.

Yes I can recommend Tosca, especially for Java Swing applications.

AutoIt.

• Test case design
• Shows results in the requirements section
• Manual test cases
• Automation

Test automation – how you can record the module. It’s already easier to record than it was, but there is still room for improvement.

UI has gotten better but could still be improved.

There are some keyword shortcuts in test case design and in general that could be introduced. Sometimes everything is too big – it’s hard to describe.

I've used it for four years.

Not so far because we only started automating now. So far we have not tried to move the existing project to a new version- we just started.

With the license stability, we have had a lot of issues. There were many interruptions to the connection and took two-three weeks and have installed the license ourselves.

We just started – it should be ok.

Quite good – they were trying to solve the problem.

It was ok. I have seen better. They tried to find solutions quickly so that is a plus, and they always called back when there was an appointment or said they would call back.

No previous version was used.

Straightforward – only problem was with the license server.

We looked at Ranorex and Eggplant. We decided to go with Testsuite because you can integrate manual test cases and you can see the reports in a nice way and see how the test case is going in the requirement section.

• Multiple scanning engines to automate many different applications.
• Powerful ability to generate different test data combinations from test instances.
• Logical workflow (from requirements through to execution and reporting).
• GUI is easy to learn.

In my case I was able to rapidly construct several automation suites for a government organisation, that greatly enhanced their ability to cover all key areas of functionality in an efficient manner. The main implementation of Tosca was used for regression testing a major upgrade to an insurance claims processing application. It worked very well for this purpose.

At the time I was using the product, the reporting function was lacking in usability and detail. Detailed reporting was generally done outside of Tosca.

Seven months.

Not really, it's generally very stable. There were some occasions early on when the application crashed. However, this was more related to the network environment than the application itself.

No. It is pretty easy to add other users, roles, and control access to different areas of the application. In my case we didn't upscale to a great degree but I know this is possible. Large organisations would take advantage of Tosca's utilisation of the common repository with robust check-in/check-out procedures to eliminate the risk of unintended changes.

Excellent. I was often able to access their chat support instantly and resolved the bulk of my inquiries very rapidly.

No, Tosca was my first automation experience.

It was very straightforward. I didn't do the initial setup. It was via a colleague. He had it up and running, along with a "happy path test" within a morning.

Not my area, but contact Tricentis for this.

No, I was not involved in the choosing of this solution.

Give it a go. Having since used Selenium to build an automation suite in another organisation, I feel Tosca has clear advantages in both the scope of applications that it can automate (web, mobile, windows, and more) as well as the intuitive GUI and powerful generation of test data combinations. Having not come from an IT background, I was able to get up and running with Tosca far quicker than with Selenium.

Valuable features include generating data including ECP, BVC and risk-based opportunities:

• If the data is vast, we may miss a few scenarios. To avoid this, the Tosca tool provides an inbuilt feature.
• Classifying tests into two types: Equivalence partitioning (+.-) and boundary value tests (inbuilt feature of Tosca).
• Risk-based opportunities are identified based on customer weightage for the modules (inbuilt feature of Tosca).

It has decreased the time for generating test data and risk-based opportunities which has helped us to cover key areas.

The Support TDD and BDD could be improved.

We have been using the product for a year, but we have been using HPE products for seven years.

We encountered a stability issue with Tosca, but it was rectified.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I would give technical support a rating of an eight out of 10.

We switched from Python for fast access of files.

The setup was straightforward.

The pricing of Tosca and HPE is high.

We evaluated SmartBear.

I prefer TDD with SpecFlow and Cucumber using a coded UI. These tools need to be integrated with Tosca to drive the TDD approach in automation.