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 the solution for testing. The company's businesses are tax-free payments. We're testing the company applications around the aspects of its tax-free payment systems.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the extremely fast setup. You can really get up and running within a very small window of time. It's great.

We like the fact that it works across mobile, desktop, web, and APIs. Due to this, the solution has a broad range of applications.

The solution needs to improve its simulation of mobile environments. Right now, that aspect is really lacking.

The solution should work to try to lessen the cost of the solution. Right now, using it is costly for companies such as ours.

We'd like to see improvement in shared repositories. The problem with the shared repository is this: as it gets bigger, as we create more test cases, and due to this, we are experiencing issues.

I've been dealing with the solution for just over a year.

The stability of the solution is excellent. It's very reliable. We don't seem to have issues with bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good.

The scalability of the solution is very good. We can expand it if we need to The solution doesn't give us any problems in that sense.

The technical support of the solution is very good. We've very satisfied with the level of service provided to us.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was not complex at all. It took us less than a month to have something up and running. It was very easy, and one of the solution's big selling points for our organization.

We're simply customers of Tosca. We don't have any professional relationship with the company.

The pricing of the solution is quite expensive. It's definitely not one of the cheapest options. It's very pricey.

On top of the already expensive pricing, there are add-ons that help with the basic test suite, and you have to pay more for those.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'd recommend people do a proof of concept (POC) around Tosca and compare it to other available tools. That way, an organization will know if the solution is right for them without investing too much time into everything.

Our primary use case is UI-based regression tests on Microsoft Windows.

Compared to the old tools, WinRunner and TestDirector by Mercury Interactive, it accelerated building, performing, and maintaining regression tests by a factor of approximately ten times.

This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated.

It allows for effective test management and an effective test case design.

The most valuable features are:

• Non-scripting test case building
• Test cases are easy to maintain
• Very good test case design module
• All of the features are well integrated into the suite

I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for ten years.

Prior to this solution, we used WinRunner and TestDirector by Mercury Interactive.

The performance with Tricentis Tosca is better.

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.

We use this solution for risk-based testing in conjunction with test optimization and test automation.

Our testing landscape ranges from web applications to mobile applications to mainframe to PDF. The tool takes care of most of the testing requirements with relatively minimal effort.

Tricentis Tosca has evolved from being a functional test automation tool to becoming a Continuous Testing platform. It has helped teams within our organization become more aware of the testing requirements in terms of risk and priority. 

It has also enabled teams to optimize risk coverage and enabled them to test more wisely.

Risk-based testing, test optimization, and support for over one hundred technologies are some of the most important capabilities of the platform. Many may argue that the same can be achieved by other tools as well, but not all within the same platform. The ease of maintainability is also a differentiating factor.

Even though the platform has been continuously evolving, there is room for improvement. For example:

• Test reporting hasn't been as impressive as the other components of this platform.
• Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation.

This is a very stable solution.

This solution is easily scalable.

I would say that they have decent support. They can be contacted via live chat, email, and online incident forms.

I was using Selenium WebDriver a few years ago. 

I switched to Tricentis Tosca because of its methodology and support for more than one hundred technologies.

The initial setup is straightforward, provided that the consultants from the company are involved.

We used a mix of both in-house staff and consultants for our implementation.

Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked.

I evaluated other solutions including both Selenium and QTP.

For organizations who want to aim for a unified continuous testing platform, and are willing to pay for it, Tricentis Tosca can be a decent investment.

Primarily test automation for webshops based on PHP code. It was satisfying as long as the GUI did not change permanently.

It did not improve because the GUI was not static, so it was not possible to write tests for a GUI that was in progress.

The XScan was great because it was a handy way to automate on a surface which made it very easy and simple.

It should be more flexible when using the modules; it is kind of frozen there. They should be made more dynamic.

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. 

We are using it for end-to-end automation. The performance is good. It's just that it doesn't support applications on the Mac. But overall it is good.

Helps decrease execution time.

We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation.

Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability. It would be great if it were more stable.

It is scalable.

We do use it but it was better a year ago. Now, the turnaround time takes a little more time.

The upgrade I was involved in was complex. We had some issues with it.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are its technology and is it stable enough.