We performed a comparison between Bitbar 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."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is the Tosca Commander. Functionality is another thing I find most valuable in the solution."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"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 most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are the Salesforce scanning. There are two scanning for Salesforce applications. There is Salesforce scanning and normal application scanning. Object identification has been really useful in Tricentis Tosca."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Tosca Commander."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"The main area where there is room for improvement is how they do upgrades. Going through this current upgrade, we were delayed a month because we are using a third-party tool. It's called Tosca Connect by Tasktop. When this latest upgrade broke that relationship between the two, it took Tricentis a month to come back with a workable solution... Their whole upgrade process needs to be better and cleaner, from an end-user standpoint."
"Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation."
"One thing to improve in Tricentis Tosca is that it's not compatible with Excel based forms. Another area for improvement is that the tool is not compatible with OpenText applications. The support and licensing cost for it also need improvement. The tool also needs cloud support, as it's currently on-premises only."
"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."
"The user management could improve in Tricentis Tosca because it is confusing. It would be better to have it in one place. Having to add it to the cloud and to a specific project can be a mess."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
"Might have a learning curve, as it does not follow the traditional Record-Play functionality, but tests have to be built from requirements or Agile story cards."
"It would be of great help if they can fix the loading or performance issues. Sometimes, when I create the test case folder and test cases, it feels like it has loading or performance issues. When passing the objects, we can't sometimes find the exact element. We need to find out that exact location and just give the path for that, and then it works. In the pipeline, when creating Jenkins, we create the list execution for passing the execution list to the commander. I feel it is a bit late, by a fraction of seconds. I first thought it could be my mistake or a setting issue, but I worked on that, and it's not a mistake or a setting issue."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". 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 ". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our Bitbar 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.
