We performed a comparison between CrossBrowserTesting and Tricentis Tosca based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"CrossBrowserTesting allows us to test our site with real-world devices in real-world scenarios and find what we're missing."
"With screenshots, I can quickly verify a page looks universally good in minutes."
"I must acknowledge that the customer support has been A++ when I have run into problems."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"This solution helps lower the overhead cost associated with buying multiple devices."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is the Tosca Commander. Functionality is another thing I find most valuable in the solution."
"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."
"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."
"One notable feature is its ability to handle negative XPath healing processes. If one XPath fails, Tosca can utilize backup XPaths to ensure test cases do not fail due to locator issues, thereby focusing on identifying application-side issues, which is the ultimate goal."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"Tricentis Tosca is a really cool tool that you don't have to be technical to use it. Additionally, the solution is easy to use. The modules, libraries, and reusable are in an efficient way to update all the tests. I find it spot on with that. We also started using the design which we switched from Excel. The design was superior to Excel."
"A problem that we are facing quite often is related to the network connection. Tests can fail if the remote CrossBrowserTesting's VM has connection problems. This happens mostly with browsers of Internet Explorer family which work on Windows OS."
"The screenshot tool defaults to a screen layout instead of a full page test. I find it a bit cumbersome that I can't have it run a full screenshot as my default."
"I have had quite a few issues trying to use a virtual machine to test our application on."
"Elements of 'real' mobile/tablet testing could be sped up."
"There should be more detailed training on CrossBrowserTesting."
"This solution would benefit from faster testing and support for more devices."
"We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"They need to improve on the reports after the execution of automation tests, since all the current organizations are looking for detailed graphical reports."
"The product needs to improve object identification. The identify with properties and anchor methods work perfectly, while the by-index and image methods may face challenges."
"Primarily I'm dealing with customers looking for a cheap solution, and they are willing to try open-source automation solutions. So from this perspective, the price of Tosca is not as competitive."
"I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step."
"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."
"The integration with mobile testing could be useful."
"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."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
Earn 20 points
CrossBrowserTesting is ranked 28th in Functional Testing Tools while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. CrossBrowserTesting is rated 9.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CrossBrowserTesting writes "Static screenshots are the feature most often used, because they are a simple method of detecting problems". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". CrossBrowserTesting is most compared with BrowserStack, Bitbar, LambdaTest and Automai AppVerify, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our CrossBrowserTesting vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
