We performed a comparison between Micro Focus UFT One and Tricentis Tosca based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Tricentis Tosca seems to be a superior solution. All other things being more or less equal, our reviewers found that Micro Focus UFT One’s automation capabilities could be improved.
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"I like the Help feature in UFT One. For example, if you are navigating a particular window, where there are different options. One wouldn’t know the purpose of every option, but there is no need to search because that window contains a Help button. If you click on that Help button, it directly navigates to the respective help needed. VBScript is very easy to understand and easy to prepare scripts with minimal learning curve."
"I like the fact that you can record and play the record of your step scripts, and UFT One creates the steps for you in the code base. After that, you can alter the code, and it's more of a natural language code."
"It is easy to automate and new personnel can start learning automation using UFT One. You don't have to learn any scripting."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"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 feature that I have found the most valuable is the recovery and cleanup process. Suppose there is a list of test cases and one test case has failed, it should not impact the other test cases. We can reuse the same test case. We can change the configuration of parameters and then use the test cases on the same thing. So, that's a useful thing. Otherwise, we have to use the cleanup process. Another useful feature is to have our own library files. We can create our objects in the libraries and reuse them. There is no need to create duplicate data for that. They have been giving some enhancements recently which means integration is also there. They've integrated with different software like Jenkins, Bamboo. So, we can also create pipeline points. They have recently given SAP and everything, which is very useful."
"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."
"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."
"It's been very helpful to have connectivity with mobile. The tool also identifies some of the actual changes from the recordings on the actual testing suite. That is something that I really like."
"We have to automate thousands of test cases and complete end-to-end SAP on business processes. To manually execute these tasks, it would take us at least two months. By automating these tasks using Tosca, now it takes five to 10 days maximum. Tricentis Tosca is a codeless or scriptless automation tool."
"The solution is expensive."
"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"They need to reduce the cost because it is pretty high. It's approximately $3,000 per user."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"They should include AI-based testing features."
"You have to deal with issues such as the firewall and how can the tool talk with the application, i.e., if the application is on a company network and so on. That, of course, is important to figure out."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The support we received from Tricentis Tosca was good, but it can improve."
"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."
"The product is not very stable when used with cloud storage. It is very hard to load the screen, making it difficult to use the tool in cloud storage."
"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."
"With regard to areas of improvement, report customization should be easier. It would be good if Tosca could provide standard reports for at least 20 variants. At present, there are only three to four variants. The mobile engine needs to be faster and easier to use; it is a bit cumbersome. Also, the object identification in the mobile engine needs improvement. I would like to see easy-to-use customizations for reports in the next release."
"Tricentis Tosca could improve on its mobile automation solution."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"The solution is expensive."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". 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 ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman, Testim and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Mobile App 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.
Both products are very useful but it really depends on what you need to test and who is building the tests. We recently chose UFT One over Tosca in a specific use case where identifying images inside a map was needed. UFT uses both OCR and Image recognition where in Tosca you would have to identify specific pixels and those pixels could move depending on what device you were using.
From a test building perspective, I feel it is easier to build tests in UFT One than in Tosca. UFT One also gives you the ability to develop tests by either writing code or using the record and convert to code option (Allows developers and Business users to work together to build/update the same test).
If you can provide more info on what you are testing and your key drivers, I can try and give more info on what tool may be best.
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing.
MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well suited for CI integrations. We liked it, in particular, because it integrates greatly with other platforms, like .net, QC and Jenkins. An added advantage was the multi-device support.
One of the best advantages of MicroFocus is that it integrates with legacy web technologies and even Windows client applications. Finally, MicroFocus supports cross-browser testing. Regardless of many features, including a test combinations generator and insight recording, it is relatively easy to learn.
That being said, it doesn’t support multiple formats of reporting. For now, UFT only supports exporting reports in HTML or PDF. MicroFocus should allow exporting to Excel, CSV, XML, and other formats. There is a bit of performance degradation of the test environment when executing automation scripts continuously for a long time. The execution can be inconsistent sometimes, and scripting takes a long time. Another downside is the high licensing price.
Tricentis Tosca is an integrated testing solution that includes testing automation and case design approach, risk-based testing, test data management, and service virtualization. The best feature is its versatility in helping both web and desktop applications. It is very reliable and stable. Another great feature is that you can reuse test cases.
The platform supports multiple technologies and devices. It is truly end-to-end. Because it is scriptless, anyone can learn to use it.
As much as we like it, there are downsides to Tosca, too. The price is one of them. It runs a bit expensive, but it is worth it. The test design section is complicated to learn, and the UI takes time to get used to.
Conclusions
Tosca is a better solution in terms of usability and versatility. MicroFocus is better for organizations with legacy web applications.