We performed a comparison between ReadyAPI 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."The performance testing capabilities are very good."
"The most valuable feature is being able to run each version for test suites."
"A single platform for functional testing, load testing security, and service actualization."
"The most valuable features of ReadyAPI are its robust functionality and collaboration capabilities."
"ReadyAPI's best features are that it's user-friendly and its behavior-driven development is flexible."
"The dashboards are very good and consolidate all of the tests that you are performing with the client."
"When you are working in sprints, you need to have continuous feedback. ReadyAPI definitely helps in automating very fast and rapidly. We have less coding, and we can more easily define our assertions. We don't use it for full-blown performance testing, but normally if you are doing your functional testing, it gives you the request and response time. Anybody who is doing functional testing can see what the request and response times are and raise a flag based upon their business affiliates, that is, whether it is meeting their affiliates. You can identify this during functional testing."
"For anyone who does not have experience with automation, ReadyAPI provides a sense of comfort, especially for testers who find it hard to go directly into coding."
"The use of automation is most valuable."
"We can also create customized functions. For example, if something isn't supported in Tricentis Tosca Commander, we can create our own function to integrate it with Tosca Commander, so we can utilize it and integrate with the macros."
"Tricentis Tosca is well integrated with other products like Jira."
"It has helped teams within our organization become more aware of the testing requirements in terms of risk and priority."
"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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Tosca Commander."
"This solution is very easy to learn and any non-programmer or manual tester, with little experience in automation, can pick it up quite easily."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"There is room for improvement in ReadyAPI, particularly in the user interface."
"Can be improved by including an inherent feature for UI automation."
"ReadyAPI could improve by having dynamic validation information."
"The reporting in ReadyAPI could be better. It can become sloppy, sometimes it works and other times it does not."
"Performance and memory management both need to be improved because other solutions use less memory for the same amount of data."
"If ReadyAPI had more integration with all of the big tools on the market then this would be very useful."
"The Property Transfer capability could be more user friendly because it is a bit difficult to understand."
"ReadyAPI's customer support isn't that great, particularly their response time."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
"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."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
"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."
"It requires some coding customization that requires expertise."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"The support we received from Tricentis Tosca was good, but it can improve."
"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."
ReadyAPI is ranked 6th in Functional Testing Tools with 34 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. ReadyAPI is rated 7.8, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ReadyAPI writes "Allows you to parameterize in one place for the changes to reflect everywhere and lets you customize the environment, but its load testing feature needs improvement, and costs need to be cheaper". 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 ". ReadyAPI is most compared with Apache JMeter, Katalon Studio, ReadyAPI Test, SmartBear TestComplete and Parasoft SOAtest, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our ReadyAPI 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.