Tricentis Tosca Reviews

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.

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.

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.

The features we've found most valuable are--

• It’s a modular structure, so changes in a module are automatically updated in all relevant test cases.
• It uses a risk-based approached via a weighted requirement set.

• Not all functions are logical without certain know-how.
• Context menu in the newer versions is not ideal.

I've used it for about one year.

During an upgrade there were issues, but this was due to certain security settings on our end, and the Tosca support team was very useful in helping us with those setting and resolving the issues.

We're discussing internally with fully integrate this tool within our business.

10/10. The customer service is top-notch.

10/10. The technical support is top-notch.

In our department there was not a different solution in place.

The initial setup was relatively straightforward with support from our network department for the setting up of a common repository.

We implemented it via our in-house team in combination with Tricentis consultants.

We also looked at Worksoft.

Try it out and do a Proof of Concept.

We like the idea of reusable data classes when we are using our test cases. We work with a lot of data, and so being able to create reusable data classes is very helpful to us.

The primary driver for us is that it puts automation into the hands of non-technical testers. Previous programs, if you’re not a programmer, you can forget about it, but with TOSCA it’s easier to get information and start automating your own tests.

So far, all our issues have had to do with our unfamiliarity with the product.

We are in a preparation phase – we haven’t seen everything yet. We purchased it about six or seven months ago, and started actively creating tests in the last six weeks.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

It's excellent, 9/10.

It’s excellent, 9/10, as the response times have been quick and there haven’t been any problems.

Initial setup was straightforward. It took a little bit of juggling to get a central database set up as defaults to working in isolation, but other than that it was OK.

We did it in-house.

TOSCA was recommended, so we didn’t look into anything else. Our software provider said it could support their solution so we went for it. We had looked into HP UFT and Smartbear. We had used HP UFT but are fading away from them.

Be prepared to change how you approach test automation – definitely a mindset shift. It's highly configurable so you want to make good use of that. Don’t be afraid to ask for help from Tricentis, they will get back to you. Have a good bank balance because it’s not cheap.

We are using Tricentis Tosca for test automation.

Tricentis Tosca has completely met our requirements. It has benefitted our organization.

The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for over five years.

The stability of Tricentis Tosca is excellent.

We are using Tricentis Tosca at 100 percent capacity.

The support we received from Tricentis Tosca was good, but it can improve.

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

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

I rate Tricentis Tosca a nine out of ten.

We use Tosca to automate progressive and regressive tests. About 60 people in my company are currently using it.

What I find valuable is that Tricentis is always refining the test methodology. They listen to feedback from the analysts about what the testing tool should do, and then Tricentis always implements it. So all the necessary testing functions are already implemented in their tools. So whenever there is some new need for a testing capability, I can be sure that Tricentis will implement it into the Tosca Test Suite quickly, and we can use it.

Tosca's reporting features could be better. Tricentis had a reporting tool called Analytics, but it didn't function properly after they reworked it. After that, they tried a new approach with key-tracing, and that didn't work. So they don't have a good reporting solution currently, and I hope they add one soon. 

I've been using Tricentis Tosca for around 16 years.

Tosca's stability is good. However, when we upgrade, sometimes we find some defects or problems. These are usually fixed within days or two weeks if there are bigger issues. And this is once per year, usually without any bigger issues. The only other thing that sometimes causes problems is when the time path and some repositories are not on hand. Also, if the infrastructure or the network is not stable, you can have problems with the application. But, of course, that's not something the application can really prevent, like if the internet connection breaks or something like that. Especially now that almost all of us are working remotely. So you can have some defects on the network that causes some problems in the application as well.

Before, we also used Tosca for manual testing. We had, I think, 400 to 800 main users — not at the same time — but we had a lot of users then. If you know the size of your repository, then it's easy to size the server accordingly. Also, when you know your requirements, you should make sure that the infrastructure meets the requirements, then it's easier. 

The quality of Tricentis support really depends on the type of issue. When it's important, I go through the surveys, account manager quizzes, and so on. Tricentis handles the important issues quickly. And if we have smaller problems, it's usually routed to India, so we get a lot of basic questions back, and I don't like that process much. But, when it's important, we're immediately connected to the right people and get quick solutions.

Setting up Tosca is quite straightforward. The main issue is setting up your infrastructure, the network port, and all those things upfront. But when this is fine, then the installation is uncomplicated. Then, we update once a year, and it takes a few hours.

We have some integrators and consultants working for us, and we always have on-demand vendor support if something is not working. They resolve issues quickly. The vendor handles software maintenance. Our installation and maintenance can be partially done by a Tricentis consultant who works for our team. But before, it was an in-house guy. That guy left, so we hired an external consultant to do the same functions as the in-house staffer. So we have someone in the organization who is doing that. Before, it was internal and not external, but he is working basically like an internal for us.

I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to talk about the pricing, but it has some significant costs. For example, you have to pay a license and maintenance fee. Then the rest of the terms are negotiable. We have to consider what we need and what benefit we get from it. You can then make a business case and see how the licensing fits best since they have different licensing models. You have to find the right model of licensing for you and then negotiate a reasonable price. So we always make a business case, and if the business case is okay, the licensing price is also okay. It provides value for the money. It's a stable product with a lot of functionality. And as I said before, it keeps pace with all the new trends that the analysts suggest, so it's worth the money

I rate Tosca nine out of 10. So if you are considering this solution, I recommend that you make sure your team is good and stable in test definition. Also, you should build up your organization's competence in test automation. That way, you can get the most out of the tool and utilize its capabilities to benefit your organization. But there are challenges with a large organization internally. For example, we first had a central team for test automation. Then we moved to HL and de-centralized our test automation team. Unfortunately, that didn't work so well since it requires some specialized knowledge that you need to learn and to practice. So now we are trying to move again to centralized test automation and get more value for the business.

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.