Tricentis Tosca Reviews

We use Tricentis Tosca for testing.

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. 

In the future, they could improve overall mobile functionality.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable. However, we had a situation with an application we wanted to test some reset passwords. We have the two-factor authentication enabled on sending an SMS to a number and in this case, we did not find anything to solve it. There was not anything to automate me getting the number, and proceed with it automatically without going and testing it manually.

The technical support is good, we were satisfied.

I have previously used Selenium in the company I used to work for and it was perfect. The solution was very good at testing web applications, but not Windows, or desktop applications. Tricentis Tosca does not have customized reporting tools ready but Selenium you can build and customize whatever you want.

Tricentis Tosca is an expensive solution and there is an annual license required. The whole licensing process is confusing and it could be made easier.

My advice is if companies have developers, or the potential to teach developers, or QA teams, I would suggest they use Selenium because the price of Tricentis Tosca is expensive.

I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

Tricentis Tosca is used to test our in-house products. We have developers for Google and other web applications for our internal use, but that product is developed by outsourced developers, that needs to be tested.

The most valuable feature is being able to create a test case by recording some scenarios and then leasing that task case to other scenarios.

We only use the UI for testing purposes, so all other features are unusable to us.

The document object model or some aspects of it has a bit of a learning curve.

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca for one year.

We use the latest version.

I don't have any issues with the stability of Tricentis Tosca.

Because my organization or team only has one or two testers, we don't need to think about scalability. As a result, that product does not need to be scalable in my environment.

My experience with the Tricentis website support was good.

I have experience with Selenium HQ and Parasoft.

We conducted a SOAtest using Parasoft. Tricentis Tosca is different and better, because it has a reusable model, whereas the others do not.

The initial setup requires some learning time. In my experience, we have testers who have no development experience, so we need to educate them on the development side. I'm referring to the ID in the document object model or some aspects of it. After that, we'll be able to use it. In my experience, the learning curve was the most difficult obstacle.

It took approximately three months to complete the deployment.

This solution is maintained by two people, the same two who use it.

I was able to learn the installation process myself.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others, but in our country, I believe the importance of testing is currently ignored or underestimated. It is not popular in our country at this moment but I will recommend this tool.

We are partners with Tricentis.

I would rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

We have been using this solution in my organization. There are several clients who have come back to us asking for different automation tools and our views on which automation tools can be used in their respective projects.

We have been evaluating for these clients. The evaluations we were doing, was for our client but done within the organization only.

The most valuable feature is the UI.

We work primarily on evaluating the UI. We evaluated Tosca BI and a bit for Tosca APIs and think they are very useful.

The reporting is really nice. There are many clients who ask for a feature with any automation tool that can generate good reports for them. There is only one such tool that facilitates that option, which is Tosca.

The volume for the BI testing is limited. If they could provide a few options to use it, using Tosca only, that could be a great thing because there are a lot of clients who do not actually want to go for the BI, but then they do have the database testing.

I know that Tosca provides the feature but it's very minuscule.

The UI does not have the option of automating the scroll bars. There are workarounds for that but for example, if I open two tabs that have the same page then it will give me another difficulty in scanning those options. 

In the next release, including this in Tricentis would be great.

I have been acquainted with this solution for approximately eight months.

So far, what we have used has been stable.

I have read some reviews where they have expressed that they are not happy with the stability, but so far, I have not faced any such issues.

The scalability is good. If I had to rate it out of five, I would say that it would be a three-point five to four.

We have anywhere from 500 to 750 people who are using this solution in our organization.

Technical support is good. Their turnaround time is usually within 24 to 48 hours, but normally we have a response within 24 hours.

Previously, we did not work with any other solution.

We have always worked with the demo licenses, which included support from the Tricentis teams. They have always been able to set up the licensing.

I would say that it is not that straightforward.

On average, it did not take more than two to three hours if you know the process properly. To get it started, it will require at least six hours.

The disadvantage is that it is very expensive.

I would like to see better costing packs. There are several features but USD $11,000 for one license is expensive. If it had more interaction and if the license cost was a little less it would be better and rate higher.

The recommendation of this solution depends from client to client and what their requirements would be, the parameters, and what is important to them. 

If the client wants good support and at the same time they want to have a good database included with the Automation Testing Suite, and is ready to spend the money, then we would definitely suggest Tricenta Tosca as a good option.

Again, it is dependant on the client's requirements and what they would want in an automation tool.

If you have Linux or Mac machines, then it gets very difficult to implement Tosca. I would suggest using it. 

For testing, they would want to migrate miscellaneous scripts and use Tosca for those migrations. But, it's very difficult. 

My suggestion would be to go with the Tricentis Suites and the Selenium Automation Suites.

From a positive perspective, I would want people to use the reporting from Tosca. They have very good reporting. The reporting feature is very user-friendly and very easy to use.

I would rate Tricenta Tosca an eight out of ten.

We use this product for testing and trying to make solutions work.

This product contains a lot of functionality.

It can provide all levels of testing from design to execution to reporting. I like it because everything is available in one place.

When people start using this product, there is a learning curve. For people who were using another product, whether an open-source one like TestComplete or a commercial product, they are unable to use this solution immediately because it is much different. You need to spend much more time learning the tool and how to use it, compared to others.

When they developed the tool, they created their own rules and you need training for the people who will be using it.

We have been using Tricentis Tosca for about six months.

I would say it's a stable solution.

I have not used to to the point where I needed to scale it.

Our entire team is using it, which is more than five people.

I have been in contact with technical support and they have been very responsive. I can't complain.

I have also been using TestComplete. It is a simpler product to use and I was learning through using it. I didn't have to do any training. There were points where I needed to check the documentation concerning limitations

The initial setup was very straightforward. I did not find it to be complex and I don't remember having any problems. There was nothing spectacular about it.

Overall, the product works fine. With respect to errors in the product, there is nothing in particular that comes to mind. If there were issues then I was always able to work my way around them.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Scriptless SW QA automation. Provides a very quick on ramp to test automation with little maintenance.

A bit early to tell, we are still learning/deploying. What we have seen so far, is solid ability around identifying core application components and easily building and executing test cases. Even during experimentation we were able to identify some “bugs” before release to production.

Exploratory testing engine needs improved element recognition (at lease in JAVA Swing)

6 months

No issues.

No issues.

Pretty good (8 out of 10). Capable, but sometimes slow.

Did not. I did however look at several competitors and found this to be the best overall.

Fairly straightforward. Good documentation and guidance.

Licensing is not too complex. If you are not sure what you need, start small with a price lock-in.

HP UFT (ALM), Qualify by Original Software, TestComplete by SmartBear

Do extensive research and experiment a lot. Solutions work differently in different environments, make sure you pick the best for your specific needs.

User friendly, Model Based Test Automation.

It makes testing easy. Specially when we need to test lengthy Oracle R12 End to End flows. Tosca is really helpful. Easy to maintain test cases and Execution as well.

Dashboard for results still need to be improve in Tosca Test Suite

1 year

Sometime compatibility issues with Oracle forms.

98% Stability is fine with Version 9.3

No

4.5/5

5/5

HP QTP, We switched because of maintenance of scripts and test cases.

It was straightforward. In fact it was easy to deploy.

In-house one.

I am really satisfied with the product.

I wouldn't usually describe user automation as a key feature but it is a key feature. The ability to scan the application and for it to have all of the attributes and things you need and put them into the test is the most valuable feature for us.

We did a full-blown POC. It was super successful and we were able to automate a large number of our scripts and save a lot of time and also automate a lot of our testing. We're now able to to build and get tests resolved. It has totally automated our testing, which is great. Now we are extending it across all of our teams.

We haven’t really defined this yet. Some tools we are trying to use, like virtualization, haven't been used yet, but this is really something on our end. What we can’t do we have customizations available. We know there’s a feature in the next release which automates even more, and we are trying to find a stop time so we can upgrade and get that feature.

It may be different for other companies, but for us, establishing a set of procedures to get people trained was important. The tool is fairly easy to use, but it's important that you have consistency and standards in place when using it.

I've been using it for seven months.

It's very easy to install and easy for people to use.

There have been no bugs, and it's very stable.

We are rolling it out to five of our companies. We are trying to control things internally but the solution itself is 100% scalable.

We have had them here on site nearly every week. If they aren't here they are just a phone call away. We have happily invested to get extra training. From our standpoint we have to control the roll-out speed.

The initial set up is easy, not very complex at all. You can choose how you want to do it. Depending on the size of your company. You can choose how you want to do it.

We had been a HP UFT user for a long time. We tried other tools, but this far and above exceeds this in terms of ease and flexibility with test scripts. For a lot of the tools you don’t need an automator.

Tosca is a good tool. The product enables codeless automation. If we need to write codes, it will take some time. With Tosca, we can scan things within a second, add the test, and run the script. We can track automation coverage with the help of requirements and coverage features. It is an effective feature. Reusable and library are key features of the product. Once we create the test cases with the help of the library and Reusable, we can call it repeatedly wherever we go.

I am facing issues integrating the tool with the qTest server. It is the only problem I have been facing for a long time. I am not able to troubleshoot the issue. It is quite difficult to integrate the solution with other tools.

I have been using the solution for one year and six months.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. We have 10 to 15 users.

The support is good.

Positive

We can easily install the product if we have the license. The deployment takes two to three weeks. We need one to two people for the deployment.

The tool is quite expensive.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.