Tricentis Tosca Reviews

We are primarily using this product as an automation tool, for regression, and as a revision tool. 

Using the automation tool, I can transfer test cases that are being done manually to ones that are automated. After about 30 such instances, I use the regression system from the suite to create all possible combinations of test cases to try with the new version. This gives us an overview of how the software is performing. Also, when major updates take place, we re-run all of the regression tests to make sure that it still conforms to the requirements.

The automation testing functionality is very powerful.

This tool is very easy to use and I think that anyone can come in, having no experience with it, and within four to six months be comfortable with it.

The graphical interface means that you don't have to write any code.

The interface is very organized. You can find folders and settings for everything that you need, and you can easily connect things together.  

I would like to see better integration with other testing tools. There is full integration with Selenium and having this with other tools would be good.

Integration with other programming languages would also be helpful.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for the past three years.

I have not really found many problems or bugs when using this product, so stability has not been an issue.

Tricentis Tosca is very scalable. You can easily move from a small test suite to a larger test suit, which I think is pretty good. We about 100 users in the organization.

I have not been in touch with technical support from the vendor.

I also have experience with Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, and Ranorex.

Our organization is broken into separate sections and there is a team for installation and configuration that handled the deployment. As I am not part of that team, I am unable to judge the complexity of the setup.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to make use of the extensive library that they have. It is a good collection of training videos and documentation, and I would advise everybody to go through these materials. They are really helpful and it will allow them to learn much faster, bringing them to the point where they can use it to its full potential.

In summary, I am really comfortable with this tool, I haven't had many problems, and it's sufficient for our work. In the three years that I have been working with it, whenever I've needed something, I've been able to find it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use it as an MBT, a model-based automation tool.

The solution is script-less, so you don't need IT knowledge to use the solution in an operational way. This is the most valuable feature. It's also only one of two or three tools that can do good automation on SAP, and in my opinion, it's the best of those.

The test sheet is very good.

There are algorithms that allow you to generate various test cases that guarantee maximum coverage.

If Tosca wants to rule on the RPA world, they have to give some security guarantee.

The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows.

The solution could use different modules that would be useful to an organization. Examples of modules they could add include robotic process automation, analytics, and business intelligence among others.

The stability of the solution is good.

Technical support is very efficient. There's a helpline, but there's also an academy and training support.

The initial setup is very easy. Deployment took about half a day. If you want to deploy it on just the local machine, it will only take about ten minutes. However, if you want to deploy it to an environment with a common repository in a collaborative multi-user mode on a database that allows some concurrent shared work, it might take up to one day.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

My advice to others is to get training by a professional. This will help anyone use the product. Tosca allows users, even if they don't have some IT knowledge, to quickly start and use Tosca after about two weeks. You can take any business person, and just offer them good training. After about two weeks or a month, they could be independent and will be able to automate some complex scenarios. You don't have to be an IT specialist to handle the product. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The tool can be handled without any knowledge in parameterisation, especially the TestCaseDesign which makes the tool mighty and stable - even when releases in the tested software are subjected to deep code changes. The maintenance of the test tool is manageble.

I managed a test set over all areas for a retail bank alone for about three years with almost 1,000 test cases. I automated the starts overnight, and paralleled them on virtual clients. Then, I needed 24 hours for generating synthetic test data, regression test runs, and analyses. The runs were stable, and I could report many defects before the start of the manual tests.

The Testmanagement option are still weak - improvement is outlined, but not yet visible. I expect first impressions of this solution at accelerate in Vienna, october 2017.

Actually I upgrade the testsuite as often as possible - in my function as consultant I want to feel and test the improvements as soon as they are released. 10.3 was not stable enough for my expectations.

Not yet.

With testuite 10.3 - so I derelease back to 10.2.

Not yet - as the environments were always well set up.

This is a point were Tricentis has to improve - customer support seems to be overflood in the last few months.

Basically it's very high, the support is fast, friendly and qualified - if reachable. Which was not always the case in the last three months.

The initial setup should be done highly structured, and by qualified specialists. This is the only efficient way of a stable test set.

I would definitely recommend a vendor team for the implementation!

We felt the benefits within the first year. I would recommend in-house management.

There was no need for us to do so.

It is a mighty and stable tool, but it needs qualified and motivated staff to work with and manage it.

This is a complete Test Automation solution of our Enterprise Legacy system, which has many technical peripherals. It provides complete automation for apps/services of all domains and technology integration. Although not yet implemented on our site, features like Orchestrated Service Virtualization and Exploratory Testing excite me and have a huge potential for us.

• Helped us to lay a strong foundation for model based test automation
• Increased throughput
• Improved quality
• Better cost optimization
• Faster time to market

• Licensing/Pricing: Licensing needs to be packaged and not too granular at the component level.

• Cloud or Service Offering: It's a licensed installation. I am not sure if it can be used in the mode of "product as a service" offering
• Web Interface: To avoid client installations for certain features

I have been using this for more than 7-8 years of generic use. For the last few years, I have extended its use as a strategic tool for test modernization, automation, and transformation.

There have been no stability issues in particular.

There have been no scalability issues as of now.

Technical support is very good. We have been supported by a very professional technical team from the vendor.

We did use different solutions. We moved to Tosca because:

• It offers a complete automation solution for all of our applications streams.
• Other technologies were unsupported and fell short on our requirements

We are also in process of moving to Tosca for other functions.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward.

I would like to see some competitive pricing and licensing models.

We evaluated HPE's QC and our existing tools.

If you are up to end-to-end test automation, then please give Tosca a try.

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.

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. 

We use it to automate testing. In terms of the version, we're up to date. We're on the latest version. 

It speeds up automation processes within testing.

The use of automation is most valuable.

There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases.

There should be better testing in the ETL, warehouse, or big data environment. They need to look at the speed of that and how they do that type of testing.

There should be better support. We should be able to speak to somebody.

I have been using this solution for six months.

The product is stable, but it can be a little slow, but that's a consequence of the fact that you're able to automate very quickly.

If you buy more licenses, it's scalable. 

We just have a single instance, and we have multiple users with different projects.

Their technical support is fairly good, but it's all done through email, which is a little difficult.

I've used a lot of different automation tools. I'm a contractor. I go into different organizations. So, I didn't really switch. This company was using it.

It is fairly easy. The worst thing about it is grabbing a license every time you log in. That takes a little bit of time.

The deployment duration depends on whether you use the on-premise version or cloud version. It takes a few hours for the on-premise version.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we just implemented the tool, did the training, and then started moving testing over to the tool.

We did it ourselves. We had just one person for the deployment.

We have seen an ROI because we are able to automate test scripts much quicker.

It is expensive. There is also the training cost, but it does speed up the process. So, you get a return on investment.

I evaluated the freeware tools.

When reviewing the tool, you should make sure that any automation you've already got integrates fully with the Tosca tool. That's the biggest thing. Migration of any current automation is potentially a really difficult process.

I'd give it an eight out of ten.

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.