We performed a comparison between Telerik Test Studio 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 most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"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 most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."
"You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues."
"The low code is the best feature."
"The reporting is really nice."
"The technical support is good, we were satisfied."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"Security, UI, and basic performance improvements could be done to the product to enhance its use."
"A disadvantage of Tricentis Tosca is that you have to customize it according to your need, during the early stages of the software, particularly during upstream testing, before system and unit testing."
"Tricentis Tosca’s technical support could be improved."
"The UI does not have the option of automating the scroll bars."
"I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step."
"You need to spend much more time learning the tool and how to use it, compared to others."
Telerik Test Studio is ranked 18th in Functional Testing Tools with 5 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Telerik Test Studio is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Telerik Test Studio writes "Very good performance and load testing capabilities". 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 ". Telerik Test Studio is most compared with Selenium HQ, Ranorex Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, Katalon Studio and Visual Studio Test Professional, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our Telerik Test Studio vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression Testing Tools vendors, and best Test Automation 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.