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 Regression Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"Tricentis Tosca is well integrated with other products like Jira."
"The Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"The low code is the best feature."
"It's stable and reliable."
"Multiple scanning engines to automate many different applications."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"It's a simple tool, particularly in terms of system testing. You can also convert and automate using Tricentis Tosca with ease."
"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."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"Parallel execution is not yet implemented for Tosca. This means you can't execute the same test case on multiple machines remotely."
"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."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"They can make it more stable. I have used this tool for SAP applications. They have an alliance with SAP, and it mostly worked fine, but there were a few glitches. However, we got the required support from the Tricentis team. They are coming up with their new versions and upgrades with respect to how the Tricentis systems as cloud applications are updated, and it would be good if they have a robust accelerator pack."
"There have been some setbacks because of upgrades. While Tosca has been around for a while, Tricentis has catered to smaller clients and I don't think they have done such a large, at-scale transition or transformation before or worked with a company like ours, which is doing an enterprise-wide transformation. When we go to their customer advisory-board meetings, upgrades have been an issue. They have been working a lot to make upgrades seamless."
"It can be quite expensive."
Telerik Test Studio is ranked 9th in Regression Testing Tools with 5 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Regression Testing Tools with 96 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 OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman and SmartBear TestComplete. See our Telerik Test Studio vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Regression Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Regression 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.
