Tricentis Tosca Reviews

The solution has streamlined the regression testing process by integrating with Solution Manager.

The most valuable feature is automating regression testing scripts linked with Solution Manager. This functionality supports our current requirement for automated testing without utilizing other features like LiveCompare.

One major area for the product's improvement is simplifying the synchronization process of test cases between Tricentis Tosca and Solution Manager. It has been a challenge and could be streamlined to enhance user experience.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately six months.

The product is stable. 

The platform is scalable. 

The technical support services are generally good, though there are areas for improvement regarding response time and overall competence.

The initial setup was straightforward. However, synchronization of scripts from Solution Manager to Tosca was a critical part that required careful handling.

Our in-house team handled the implementation. 

I rate the platform an eight out of ten. 

Tricentis Tosca can be easily integrated with SAP infrastructure. It's a proven solution.

We faced some hardships in implementing the solution because of integration.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for two years.

Tricentis Tosca would be a better option for enterprise companies.

We faced some hardships in implementing the solution because of integration. However, depending on the requirements and considering the long-term benefits, it might be okay to undergo extra difficulty.

I usually recommend the solution to companies that use SAP.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Tricentis Tosca for test automation.

The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is the Tosca Commander. Functionality is another thing I find most valuable in the solution.

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.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Tricentis Tosca is a distributed repository mechanism because it's required in the current installation for my company.

We have a contract with Tricentis Tosca, and we've been using the solution for six years now. We're using the latest version, which is version 14 because there was this bug called the Log4j.

Tricentis Tosca is a pretty stable solution.

In terms of scalability, that's a challenge in Tricentis Tosca. Scaling the solution is quite difficult because it uses only Windows environments, so it's not a good solution for scaling up. Right now, we rely on Windows, but we are moving to the cloud, so scaling Tricentis Tosca would be difficult for us.

The technical support for Tricentis Tosca isn't quick, but it's useful.

The initial setup for Tricentis Tosca was pretty straightforward.

Initially, for the deployment of Tricentis Tosca, we used a consultancy company, but now we do its deployment in-house.

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.

My company is using Tricentis Tosca and is an end-user of the solution.

With the Tricentis Tosca installation that my company has, one person is enough for maintenance.

My advice to others looking into implementing Tricentis Tosca is to limit it. I would use it only for specific test automation requirements, and I wouldn't use it for other purposes because it's a very expensive solution.

My rating for Tricentis Tosca is seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for automation testing. It integrates with other DevOps pipelines. 

The solution has improved out time to release on production. Everything's automated now, which makes everything move faster. 

The solution is model-based. I know and that's the main reason we went there. We are also using Tosca BI, which is the BI module. We're using that regularly for most of our teams. We just purchased it for our Business Intelligence. We ran a POC and then we just purchased it. 

The initial setup isn't too difficult. 

The solution does not have one catch-all product. For example, if you wanted the DB for Business Intelligence, it's a different module that you have to purchase. If you want to do API testing, you need to buy a different module. If you want to do performance testing, which we haven't bought yet, you would need to buy another module. There are a lot of modules you have to buy in order to have full-blown testing capabilities. I understand that they're breaking them up so people who don't want everything aren't forced into things they won't use. However, for those that do want all of the functionality, it can get costly. 

We've been using the solution for probably two to three years so far. 

The stability of the solution is good. It doesn't crash or freeze. there aren't bugs or glitches. 

The solution can scale quite well. We have 16 groups using it. I don't know how many individuals are on it, however, it's likely there are five people per team. We usually don't go by user when we're counting.

We do plan to increase usage in the future. We use it quite extensively already. We may be moving some legacy tools over to it. 

Technical support has been good. We are satisfied with the level of support on offer. 

We used IBM Rational or Functional Tester and it was just outdated and we needed to go down the toolset. We also wanted something that we use as a data model. 

The initial wasn't complex, it was pretty easy, however, when we did the upgrade to the latest version, which is the new way of architecting, that was more of a challenge due to the fact that we're in multiple clouds. That was more of an issue for us to upgrade due to our multiple cloud environment.

We had to work with Tosca quite a bit to get that one done. Of course, there aren't too many folks who are doing what we're doing, so that might be part of it.

The deployment took a quarter of a year. We tried to install it in our environment and that's got a lot of rules in it, and therefore it took a while. For us, the security and architecture had to be approved before we put anything into our complex environment. It also took a while to train people up on it. 

We have three staff members that handle maintenance aspects, however, they also work on different tools as well. They are not full-time on just Tosca.

We hired some consulting hours from Tosca to help us with the tech. We ran a POC, which they helped us with. Then we did have some consulting hours - maybe 30 or so. We also had them train us. It was good.

They also have self-service training. They recommend you take the self-service training before you start working with the consultants. That way you know more, and then it doesn't take as much time with the consultants. 

While our teams are seeing a great benefit, I wouldn't say we see a return on investment. ROI can be subjective.

The solution is expensive. You can do multi-year or you can do yearly in terms of a licensing agreement. You can do whatever you want.

While it's a pricey solution, it's probably more stable and has more capabilities than some of the other solutions out there.

The only other cost, aside from choosing the modules you need, is the server costs as you need to put it somewhere. 

We did look at other options before choosing Tosca, however, I cannot recall which. It was a few years ago now. We did use Gartner to help narrow down our options. 

We are end-users and customers. 

We are using the latest version of the solution, although I can't speak t the exact version number. 

We have the solution on the AWS and Azure clouds and we also have it on-premises. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's stable and it works, however, the cost is high. You also need a high level of knowledge in order to use it. You can't just pull someone off the street and make them a user. There's a definite learning curve. 

We use it for test automation and manual tests, and we use it as our central repository for all test cases.  Our test cases focus on front end testing and back-end testing.  Tosca BI is what we use for back-end testing.  

We also have built out RPA processes that run in Tosca in conjunction with DEX.

We're currently going through an upgrade of a system here, in-house, and Tosca has allowed us to do more testing compared to what we were previously able to do. In the past, it would just take too much time for humans to do. This additional testing that we're doing, which provides additional test coverage for the upgrade, would take a couple of individuals three weeks to do, and we're able to do it within 24 hours with Tosca.

Also, the solution enables us to run the entire regression test suite, immaterial of where a change has been made. We're able to run all our regression tests at one time. We do not have CI/CD set up yet, so it still has to be manually kicked off. For example, for the in-house upgrade I mentioned, most of what they're building is regression test cases because we want to make our upgrades faster and we want to do them more frequently. So as the users are building out the test cases, they're also creating the regression execution list. They can build upon that and then run that when they need to. And then all they do is do the analysis of the execution.

Tosca is also slowly starting to remove redundant test cases. We're working with the users to build better test cases and remove those redundancies as well. This really helps because we have the central repository which allows us to share everybody's test cases and to reuse the test cases globally. We have delivery teams in Edinburgh and in the Netherlands as well as here in the US. It really allows for that single collaboration and for reduction and reuse of test cases. We're still analyzing how this has affected our testing efficiency. That's one of the reasons we're upgrading to 12.3. We want the Tricentis Analytics to help paint that picture a little bit better for us.

We are starting to see the test speed increase a little bit. Looking, again, at that in-house upgrade's tests, if we had manual testers doing it, it would take a couple of weeks, and now we can execute test cases in 24 hours. Another team just completed some test automation test cases that take two minutes to run. When they first ran them they ran into errors and issues which were legitimate issues. The developers fixed them and they ran the tests again and found some more errors. They went back to developers. The whole time it took to resolve things was about 20 minutes. That is a huge improvement over how things worked before. It would have taken hours if it was manually tested, verified, etc.

Finally, we have BAs who have been trained on Tosca, people who have picked it up fairly quickly with little background in development or coding, and they've been able to get up and running on it fairly quickly. We would like to get to the business to be able to help control testing as well, but we're not there yet. We are using exploratory testing, but we're not 100 percent using that quite yet.

The most valuable features are 

• Tosca BI 
• Tosca Commander.

Tosca BI is important to make sure that our data integrity is in check and validated; to make sure our data is good. Our data is the number-one important driver for our company, so if that's not good, we have some big problems. 

Tosca Commander lets any test cases that are UI driven validate, and tests the UI and expected results.

Also, the nice thing about the model's solution is that we're able to build out the modules within Tosca, to facilitate ease of maintaining the test cases. It allows one spot to do an update and that flows through all the test cases that need to be updated.

The main area where there is room for improvement is how they do upgrades. Going through this current upgrade, we were delayed a month because we are using a third-party tool. It's called Tosca Connect by Tasktop. When this latest upgrade broke that relationship between the two, it took Tricentis a month to come back with a workable solution. To me, that resulted in critical customer impact and it took way too long for them to resolve. Their whole upgrade process needs to be better and cleaner, from an end-user standpoint.

4 years

The stability seems pretty robust. We've come across some minor issues, but I think you'll have that with any kind of thing with any software. Those issues were the result of a combination of the environment and not having the knowledge of other things that would help resolve them.

In terms of scalability, one of the things I do is challenge people to prove that it doesn't work. It has yet to be proven to me that it doesn't work with something. We've always found a way to be able to do test automation with it.

We have developers and BAs using the tool. We have 16 delivery teams and there are an average of seven people on each team. We require two people for maintenance of the solution. They are test automation engineers. If you're talking about maintaining test cases, everybody on the delivery team is involved. It's in their goals to maintain their test cases for what they deliver, and that includes developers and BAs.

Every day, Tosca is being used more and more. Part of our digital transformation is that we keep growing the tool base and what the test cases are.

Tosca's technical support is mediocre. I've worked with better support. The reason I say that is because, here in the US, if we put in a support ticket, that ticket usually goes to the European support and there's that time lag. Something that could be responded to within an hour or two can have a 24-hour gap until we get any response.

Also, sometimes we run into some who are technical and then we run into support members who aren't very technical, and who just give a canned answer. That's not very helpful. There's definitely room for improvement in terms of their support.

We used Selenium before Tosca. One of the reasons we decided to look at other tools was that, with Selenium, the maintenance of the scripts started becoming higher. The more and more that test cases were built, the higher the maintenance cost was and we started seeing a diminishing return as a result. 

Also, you really can't do database testing, for the most part. There are ways around that limitation, but it just doesn't work very well with Selenium. 

From a reporting standpoint, you really can't produce robust reports like you can within Tosca. 

Finally, the infrastructure with Selenium is a little bit more challenging and there's really no built-in test management with Selenium as well.

On a scale of one to ten, with one being straightforward and ten being complex, the setup was around six or seven. It wasn't completely straightforward but it wasn't totally complex either. It just needed some insight from Tricentis to make sure things were being done correctly.

The first deployment took about a week. We then went through an upgrade where we used their consulting service as well, because that was when they changed how the licensing was done and the license server. That took about two weeks to do. With this latest upgrade, we're going on our fifth week now. It's taken us a little longer because of that issue that we uncovered.

Our implementation strategy was a global implementation, where we empowered all delivery teams to be able to use Tosca. We set up the application servers and the repository in a global data center and then we pushed out Tosca Commander to all the delivery teams so they could do test automation and manual testing as well.

We used a Tricentis consultant for the first setup and deployment. They were fantastic. They're very knowledgeable, they're great at what they do, they know the product inside and out, and it really helped speed things up. 

ROI is one of the reasons we're trying to get Tricentis Analytics set up, so we can provide factual data on the test cases and the return. We have KPIs set up to help us with that.

We paid upfront for the licenses and maintenance and we pay the maintenance fees as we move forward, yearly. There are no additional costs that I am aware of.

We evaluated SmartBear, HPE QTP (now UFT), QuerySurge, and Alteryx.

It was very apparent that Tosca was an all-in-one solution. We could do database testing, UI, and API testing. The others focus on one area. HPE and SmartBear focus on things such as UI/UX interface-type testing, while Alteryx and QuerySurge focus on backend database testing. Tricentis encompasses all that and that's why we selected them.

If you're going to have somebody come in and help set up, don't go with a third-party vendor, but have Tricentis consultants come in, do training, and help set up. It's worth the extra money to have them come in and do right, versus a third-party that might not know everything. That was our experience. We tried the third-party route to help us, and we immediately saw that it was not the right way to go. That's when we went to Tricentis themselves to come in and help us.

The biggest lesson I've learned is more connected to the tool's adoption. If people have been doing the same thing for over ten years, it tends to be a little bit hard for them to switch over because they want to do things the way they've always been doing them. But the tool itself is fairly simple. It's a pretty solid tool.

There are a few ways to overcome the resistance to new technology. But it's really about creating urgency around why the tool is important to the company and why people need to adopt it. We've done lunch-and-learns to help people understand it. We also champion any success stories with the tool, through newsletters that go out. Sometimes, it's just about bringing in new people with the right mindset.

We've slowly been increasing our rate of testing automation using Tosca. We did a digital transformation with SAFe Agile, and then with adopting test automation. So the tool-adoption piece has taken a little bit longer. We're not quite where we want to be yet. We're still building on it. Tosca covers about 50 percent of our test cases at this point. The solution hasn't reduced our cost of testing yet. We're still a little immature in this process.

In terms of delivering more features for release, we are watching features but we're not there yet. We're just not mature enough to have those hard facts to help us state that this is helping complete more features. From a defects standpoint, we're trying to get a better handle on how defects are captured here, because before there wasn't a concise, approved process on defects. Everybody did their own thing and I'm pretty sure things fell through the cracks. People weren't identifying defects as defects. That's another one of the things we're trying to get better at.

Tricentis keeps building on BI and Tosca itself, and they're just getting better and better every time. A lot of the things they're focusing on are the right things.

Below are the features that are the most valuable in regards to this product:

• With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests.
• Exploratory testing gives an option to record a video, has interactive steps to capture a manual test case flow, and it can be converted to a PDF document with links for the video.
• Using exploratory testing, we can send an email to record manual test cases to the business analysts (BAs) who never need a product to be installed in their machine. The recorded files can be stored on a common server (that needs to be set up separately) or they can send those files to the intended automation team via emails.
• Not much in the way of programming skills is required to use this product.

Our organization is satisfied with this product on the technical side of it, but our organization was looking for the reporting part of this product since they undergo an auditing process for each year. The reports should be improved for the Tricentis Tosca product.

They need to improve on the reports after the execution of automation tests, since all the current organizations are looking for detailed graphical reports.

My previous company uses an application which will create a purchase order for their products, so my company wants to track all the purchase orders and the accounts that have been used for testing. We have set up data and automated tests in Tricentis Tosca. Using the Execution Folder (in Tosca) we are able to execute automated tests which gives detailed information for each run/execution. However, we were expecting a report for each execution like what scenario executed, what data was used (dummy customer accounts) and the resulting purchase order numbers.

Tricentis Tosca is able to export the execution results in Excel/PDF format but our company was expecting customized reports, so I mentioned this as room for improvement.

I have worked on this product for six months.

There are no issues with the stability part of the product.

There are no issues with the scalability of the product.

I would rate the technical support a 9/10, their turnover time is very good.

We have used HPE UFT (formerly known as QTP) and Selenium, but some of the critical applications that we needed required different automation tools so we switched to Tricentis Tosca.

The product's setup is pretty much straightforward, no issues in regards to that.

I am not much involved in the pricing and licensing.

We explored tools such as HPE QTP/UFT, Selenium, Ranorex and TestComplete but these tools require some specific programming skills to start. Tricentis Tosca doesn’t require any programming skills and it’s a codeless automation.

For a manual tester who wants to become an automation specialist with no programming skills, this is the right tool for the future.

I use the solution for functional and automation testing. 

The solution can be deployed in DevOps and ERP environments like Oracle Fusion. It accelerates testing with the libraries. The product incorporates libraries and is more sensitive to the scans. 

The tool incorporates AI in maintaining and capturing libraries, making script maintenance easier for automated testing cases.

Tricentis Tosca is expensive. It should improve the testing of legacy systems and interfaces. 

The tool offers local support in Mexico with the same language and time zone. I haven't contacted support yet. 

The main difference between Panaya Test Dynamix and Tricentis Tosca lies is the automation testing approach. Tricentis Tosca incorporates scanning and libraries in a model tailored to specific business areas. These capabilities make script and library maintenance more efficient and reduce the time required for upkeep, in contrast to Panaya Test Dynamix's approach.

Tricentis Tosca's deployment is easy and can be completed in two to three days. Three to five people are needed to complete it. It usually takes two people to integrate the system. The exact number depends on what kind of testing is being done. For example, regression testing might need three to five people, especially for handling purchase orders in sales cycles.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

Our customers use it for low-code, no-code testing, near-field communication (NFC) testing, Salesforce testing, and UI testing.

The ability to pick up when a desktop picks up, which makes it much faster to run tests. Also, its ability to work across multiple systems is very useful.

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.

For creating test scenarios, looking at defects, historical defects, and kind of putting in generative AI would add value. 

I have been using this solution for around four years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers because this is not ideal for smaller customers. Smaller customers tend to be using open source tools, but actually, to get it to the enterprise level, Tricentis is used a lot.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is easy, and ten is difficult to set up. It is usually deployed on public and hybrid.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is on the higher side. There are open-source tools available, and there are other tools available that are much smaller. If you are looking at commercials, then there are options available that are newer.

So, if you need to accelerate the delivery of your solution and leverage the low-code, no-code platform, that's where you can actually bring in quite a lot of automation with the region type in Tricentis Tosca. Maintaining your test scenarios, running them immediately to create mind maps, and then using new-generation tools like xMine to integrate with Tricentis Tosca can significantly reduce the testing cycle time from a typical 20-35% of the software engineering cycle to as low as 10%. This can significantly improve the turnaround time for decision-making.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. There are lots of alternatives that are available at a good price point. So when you are working with large customers who have big budgets, bigger budgets, certain places are something that they are going to take up. When they are working with medium-sized customers, potentially, the signatures could actually address that.