Tricentis Tosca Reviews

Our primary use case of Tosca is for the automation of web-based applications. We currently have five clients who have deployed this solution. I am the practice head and we have good capabilities in this tool.

The solution is very user-friendly and the low code automation is great and very helpful.

It was very difficult to get information about licensing costs. None of that information is readily available. For customers with a smaller budget, it would be helpful if Tricentis could offer options for smaller organizations to be able to use the tool. We've also found that customer support is lacking. 

We've been testing the trial version of this solution for the past several months. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

Reaching out to customer support is challenging and they could improve on that. 

Neutral

We previously used other tools but our clients switched to Tricentis because of its ease of use.

The initial setup was easy.

This is an expensive solution. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

Tricentis Tosca is a tool used for system and application testing.

The advantage of using Tricentis Tosca is that we can get started with automation without much investment on solution development, with it following a keyword-driven approach. We have the actions and verifications readily available, so you can get started on the Tricentis Tosca conversion from the first day of training, and this is the advantage we have observed from the tool.

I also like that it is a simple tool, in terms of system testing, though there are other tools now that are good competitors for Tricentis Tosca, e.g. Katalon Studio.

A disadvantage of Tricentis Tosca is that you have to customize it according to your need, during the early stages of the software. Sometimes this happens when you're not on the system testing phase, but you're very close to development, e.g. more on the upstream testing, before system testing, unit testing, etc.

For example, you have to inject something as a precondition to the solution on the test, so you have to do some presetting, you have to write some code to it, and you have to make some conditions for upstream testing. Tricentis Tosca is not recommended in that stage, but it's definitely better for system testing, with it being keyword-driven and you have the keywords readily available, especially if you compare it with other tools such as Micro Focus and TestComplete.

Though I'm not currently working with Tricentis Tosca, e.g. I don't have a project utilizing the solution, I've had experience with it in the past year.

We evaluated Micro Focus, TestComplete, and Katalon Studio.

I am in the QA side, and I have almost 20 years of experience in QA. I'm doing all the automations. My experience with commercial tools are customer specific, e.g. if the customer wants to use a specific tool. I have experience on object-based tools and other types, on the commercial side. We use OneSource libraries and the custom frameworks, so that's where I have more experience, compared to commercial tools.

I don't have any current projects with Tricentis Tosca, but my company has a partnership with Tricentis. I'm not in the delivery team, e.g. I'm on the CoE team. Our application testing is more on digitally managing application drivers, so our scope on application testing is minimal. However, everyone's going digital nowadays, e.g. there's the remote setting and other things to come, so we utilize browser-based solutions, testing, mobile, etc.

I'm part of the CoE team where our work involves solutioning, initial designs, and choosing the right tools. We don't get into the product and use the same tool for a long time, in particular, we do a POC. With Tricentis Tosca, we have asked our teams to do a POC using it, because there is nothing more important than learning the tool, so that it can be easily understandable. Based on customer demand, we have done a few POCs for the tool, so our team isn't really involved in the full lifecycle of a project.

Katalon Studio is very similar to Tricentis Tosca, and price-wise, it's lower. This is why I don't compare Tricentis Tosca with TestComplete. I compare the tool with Katalon Studio, which is an open source robot that's similar to Tricentis Tosca, but because it's a free rule, you cannot have everything from it when compared to Tricentis Tosca.

My experience or my inputs on what to add to this solution, or what I'd like to see from it in the next release, would not be great, because our team is not into applications that much. Our scope of testing the applications is minimal. We are more into the panel-based devices and smart devices, e.g. POS (point of sale) or Point of Care devices in the medical field, or input devices, aeronautical flight attendance panels, etc. Those are the areas we are involved in, so they are purely embedded domains.

I'm giving Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten rating.

Tosca has been used for automated testing with our business process management tool, known as Athium, as well as our GRC tool, Archer.

It assists us in putting together automated testing for those two platforms in order to manage test coverage and do it in an automated manner as opposed to how it was done manually.

The most valuable aspect of using Tosca is that its user interfaces are intuitive. 

With the resources, we can quickly learn the product. You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues. It gave us a greater level of confidence when we were carrying out those tasks.

Some of those testing with other code-based setting frameworks found it to be much more fragile. As a result, managing and updating were much more difficult than with Tosca.

In terms of tool limitations, there is not a lot that the vendor would need to develop at this time. I believe that the Tosca tool's setup capabilities, as well as functionaries, could easily assist us in a very nice way with our automated testing effort.

There are some things that we would need to do on an organizational level. We did not implement the process of our primary automated testing tool. The IT teams are still relying on the coding framework, which is either Ruby cucumber or Java cucumber, to complete a large portion of the automated testing.

We would have to delegate a large portion of that work to Tosca, which would rely heavily on training the existing automated testing team. Also, we would have to obtain a license for the product and ensure that all of them are operational.

While the initial setup was straightforward, we required assistance with the configuration to ensure that everything was done correctly.

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca for a year and a half.

The product is extremely stable and provides excellent value. 

We no longer have to manage the stability, and we no longer have to perform tests manually.

It gives us a much better idea of what kind of test coverage we have, as well as whether or not the system will be stable with automated testing in place.

The stability has been great.

I would give them a nine out of ten for their assistance. They were responsive, as well as assisting us to be fully enabled as soon as possible.

Our teams use qTest for a lot of test management and test planning, and some of the IT teams use qTest heavily, whereas a couple of the application teams, use Tosca.

The initial setup was simple, but there were a few areas where we needed to consult with the support team.

The support team was extremely helpful in assisting us in configuring the system correctly as well as providing and sharing some best practices for setup and configurations.

They are probably more expensive than other comparable tools, but you also get the full suite of testing tools. 

It has a wide range of capabilities. And, even though you pay probably twice as much, you get a lot more for your money.

If the teams are implementing and they are doing agile development and want to stay on track with their agile deliveries, the automated testing goes hand in hand. Tosca can be an excellent enabler for you to be able to do the testing at a much faster pace than if you were trying to do that with other manual testing and that does not slow you down.

It works very well if the organization is trying to move toward a more agile approach, and the ability to do automated testing lends itself very well to it.

I would rate Tricentis Tosca a nine out of ten. It's pretty good.

The best feature is the speed in which we are able to get our automation up and running. We had an unorganized library of regression test cases. We have, within the first six months, been able to automate 85% on our critical business processes and we have been able to maintain that while keeping our BCR ratio down. We have also seen about 234 defects per month in production to less than 8.

We are able to allocate more resources on projects instead of maintenance. Our maintenance has dwindled down to two employees and we have the confidence to try and other things and explore other units.

The only thing I am not happy about is not so much the product, but it's that we don’t a good way to control licenses. Sometimes people are using licenses at their desk and when they go home, they still have the license. There is no good way to control this. When we have an issue that someone tries to log in and they can’t, it’s down to the fact that someone has walked away with 3 licenses and they aren’t using them.

I've used it for one year.

There we're no issues with the deployment.

It’s been absolutely perfect for our organization. For a year and a half, we have been constantly running regressions and the results have been 100% consistent. If we do miss something and it misses production, it’s only due to a manual oversight and has nothing to do with the solution. When we follow our process, it’s consistent.

I am about to test it in a really big way. So far it has scaled to my needs. I am taking it organization- and vendor-wide in the next 6 months. Let’s see what happens when we bring a Cognizant on.

I would say it’s excellent. We have the best support ever. They have just gone over to the Magic Quadrant. I hope they are scalable with that move and we still get the same support.

We have used previous versions so this was down to an upgrade.

The use of the data sheet is not as clear-cut as we might think it would be. Some grasped it quickly and some did not. It depends on skill level whether or it is straightforward or complex. When it clicked, it worked well. It took a little longer than we would have liked.

I would say, take the training and go in to the product and use it the way they recommend to use it. They trained as and it works well. Some listen and kindly say we will use it the Tricentis way and don’t, they end up seeing problems. If I were to make a recommendation, Tricentis is as the top of the list.

We use Tricentis Tosca for a workflow system and for SAP.

It works fine for regression tests on the workflow system. Old scripts still work fine in browser based application. Saved and still saves us a lot of time.

SAP embedded is quite an issue. When IE was discontinued we didn't manage to get it working with msedgedriver. The support of Tricentis is below expectation for all the money we spend on them.

Version 2023.2 has a number of issues which they don't fix until the next major release (Not telling when). Badly documentated new settings.

The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca was the ease of use, but it is getting more and more difficult to use. It is almost impossible to use Tosca without programming knowledge. 

The way of creating modules is basically simple. But when you have the module it is trial and error method on settings to get them working in a testcase.

Tricentis Tosca could improve on the ease of use. There is a steep learning curve. The reporting section could be better and some of the new features could be simplified. Additionally, the user management of the client and the server are confusing. There should not be two.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately seven years.

Tricentis Tosca is stable. We have a few scripts that are running for a while now and there have not been any problems.

The scalability of Tricentis Tosca is good. We can add more users which is easy to do.

We have approximately five people who use the solution in my company.

The support from Tricentis Tosca is getting less good. When I have a problem I receive an answer. However, it is not always the answer that helps me to go on.

I rate the support from Tricentis Tosca a three out of five.

Neutral

I have not used a similar solution prior to Tricentis Tosca.

The initial setup of Tricentis Tosca was complex because of the applications we had.

I rate the initial setup of Tricentis Tosca a four out of five.

We did the implementation of Tricentis Tosca in-house but we had the help from an experienced hired team.

If we did not have Tricentis Tosca we would have to use three more testers to do everything manually. The solution has helped our company.

The price of Tricentis Tosca is approximately Є10,000 for one license. It used to be much cheaper, but they changed their license structure. It used to be a structure where if you bought a license you would receive one year of free support and maintenance. Now they only have a yearly license, and that is expensive. 

The price of the solution does not include all features available. If you need a BI solution or API testing, then you have to pay extra.

I rate the price of Tricentis Tosca a two out of five.

We did evaluate other options for stepping over to another testtool because of the current pricing and the poor support.

I would recommend this solution for browser testing because it's stable, and you can test a lot with it. It has a good user interface for testing and when managing you don't have to do a record all the time. It can be easy to maintain and use scripts.
For SAP and embedded browser apps it doesn't work fine.

Also it is not suitable anymore for users without a technical background.

Tricentis is a growing organization and Tosca is not holding the standards it used to have.

I rate Tricentis Tosca a six out of ten.

We use Tricentis Tosca for overall test management.

Tricentis Tosca is well integrated with other products like Jira. It's also relatively easy to use and doesn't need experience or a specific skill set.

Tricentis Tosca’s technical support could be improved.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for about eighteen months.

I rate Tricentis Tosca a nine out of ten for stability. We've had no issues so far with Tricentis Tosca's stability.

I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight or nine out of ten for scalability. Around five users in the test automation space are using Tricentis Tosca in our organization.

A couple of times, we approached Tricentis Tosca's technical support and got the answers to our questions.

Neutral

Tricentis Tosca was already configured and running. The installation took 10 to 15 minutes, and access and setup were very, very quick.

We did not need any assistance for the solution's implementation. It could be done without any help.

Tricentis Tosca is not expensive at all. Tricentis Tosca's licensing cost seems to be in line with other products. We're currently using a per-user license because there are only four or five users. I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten for pricing.

I use the latest version of Tricentis Tosca. The solution does not require any maintenance because it is all done automatically by the vendor.

I've not found any issues with Tricentis Tosca, and I would recommend it to other users.

Overall, I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

We needed a testing tool that could be used for automating SAP, so that was our use case for Tricentis Tosca, and amongst the candidates we tested, the solution suited us well.

To me, what stands out the most about Tricentis Tosca is that even if I'm not a technical tester, I could pick up on how to use it very quickly because of the mechanisms of the tool, for example, its scanning mechanism. I'm not so technical, but I'm able to maneuver through Tricentis Tosca and derive capability. It's a user-friendly tool. It's not very complex.

In terms of areas for improvement, Tricentis has a variety of tools, even its test management tool called qTest. Tricentis Tosca does have integration with different Tricentis tools, but the integration is geared towards a larger organization perspective. For very small organizations that have minimal licenses, the integration needs to be improvised. For example, I belong to a smaller organization that has only one license, so the capability that the tool provides for integration isn't sufficient because my company needs to have separate workspaces. When Tricentis Tosca is going to be running, it is going to use that license, but my company wants another separate workspace to record, relay, and test. This is what my team has been struggling with, and the mechanism is probably there, but that needs more time and investigation, so I can't say that I'm one hundred percent certain that Tricentis Tosca, in terms of integration for a smaller organization is insufficient.

Another area for improvement is that Tricentis Tosca is currently just a Windows-based tool which affects the market because nowadays, Windows isn't the only operating system, for example, there's also Apple or IOS that's moving much faster than Windows.

Pricing for Tricentis Tosca could be improved as well because it's very expensive.

Making Tricentis Tosca available on other operating systems is what I'd like to see in the next version of the tool. That would be beneficial. From what I've heard, you should never have the Tricentis Tosca server installed on a VM, but my company has it running on a VM and so far, there hasn't been any issue except for the VM rebooting, though I'm not sure at all if it had anything to do with having the server on the VM, or some other reasons.

I've been using Tricentis Tosca for almost two years now.

Tricentis Tosca is a very stable product, and I don't have any complaints about the tool, stability-wise.

Scaling up Tricentis Tosca would be an issue for us because of the licensing. As it's an extremely expensive product and we're a smaller organization, we don't need that many licenses, but sometimes it would be great if we could have two licenses because there are other people in the company who were trained and certified to use Tricentis Tosca. The product does provide a multi-user workspace, but we only have one license currently, so only one execution is possible at a time.

I've contacted the technical support for Tricentis Tosca. There's a support website where you can directly raise incidents with the support team and follow up. The support team is very knowledgeable about the product, though the only downside is the response time because sometimes the response isn't timely, but whenever there is any kind of response, support is very detailed and knows the product well. On a scale of one to five, with one being the worst and five being the best, technical support for Tricentis Tosca is five out of five. It's really good.

I have not tested any other SAP-related testing tools. The only tool I tested hands-on was Tricentis Tosca, and it suited the needs of my company, so it's the product we're using.

Tricentis Tosca was set up by the infrastructure team, so I don't have information on whether the initial setup was extremely straightforward or not, but I do know that there was no issue with getting the tool set up. My company has a cloud license and an on-premises license, so there are various setup options available for Tricentis Tosca.

We implemented Tricentis Tosca through our in-house team.

As for the licensing cost for Tricentis Tosca, I'm not one hundred percent sure how much it is, but I know that it's an expensive product. I wouldn't be able to rate Tricentis Tosca in terms of pricing because I don't have information on the prices of other products tested by my organization. My team tested Worksoft and that was also an expensive tool.

Few tools provide the capability to test SAP automation tools, and the majority of the products are more suitable for a larger enterprise and have higher pricing, but if you're a very technical tester, there are other tools you could utilize. Technically skilled people and technical automation testers may be able to use open source tools, but for the not-so-technical testers, only a few SAP-related tools are available, but from what I've heard, they're priced on the higher side. I won't be able to advise if Tricentis Tosca is more expensive than its competitors because I don't have pricing information for any of those tools.

My company uses Tricentis Tosca.

My advice to people looking into implementing the tool is that it's great to use, but you need to be more hands-on. Tricentis has certifications available, so the more you advance your skillset and get yourself certified, you'll learn all the mechanisms of how Tricentis Tosca can be used. So far, the tool ticked most of the boxes based on my company's needs.

I'm rating Tricentis Tosca nine out of ten. I didn't give it a perfect score because it's currently based on Windows only, and its cost is high but other than those two cons, everything has been great about the product.

My company is just a user. It has no partnership with Tricentis Tosca.

Image recognition: It has allowed us to automate a GUI section of our product which involves drawing different topologies.

I’m aware that other tools have this feature, but the whole test suite, it makes it good enough for us not to look for something else.

No, not in global organization; we are the only ones who are using it in our location (Austria), but in our team, it changed the testing workflow:

Every second week we release a candidate, and from two weeks of hard manual testing, we are testing now only a few days (four to five), the new fixed tickets and running in parallel - the regression. We have more time to increase the regression portfolio and also decrease long delays with documentation.

Running the regression – if multiple lists are executed at once or if a list contains 200+ tests, it’s a pain to stop the execution.

I have been using it for almost four years.

A few times, it just crashed. I didn’t encounter this issue with Tosca 8 and Tosca 9, but the PC was running for days so I cannot blame only Tosca. I assume Windows played its role, too.

No, not so far. We have around 3500+ TCS.

Nice and friendly, however not always coming up with the solution we were expecting. For example, after changing from Tosca 9 to Tosca 10, we were not able to run some test cases for an older tool (it was developed with Java 1.5). The solution from their side was to request a change request even if it worked in the past. In the end, we just downgraded and we are running those test cases with Tosca 9.

No.

Of the tool, yes. Managing to trigger our application was not so straightforward (because of our company access policy). We had to write some batch scripts for it, then it worked fine.

Expensive, but for long-term projects, it is paying back.

Yes, there was an analysis, but I was not part of the company at that time.

It is a good tool, but could be better in some aspects.

It’s relatively easy to set it up and intuitive to create test cases for non-developers. If you come from the development side you will feel some limitations, but I was always able to find a workaround.