We performed a comparison between Bitbar 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."Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"The use of automation is most valuable."
"Tosca BI is important to make sure that our data integrity is in check and validated; to make sure our data is good. Our data is the number-one important driver for our company, so if that's not good, we have some big problems."
"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."
"One notable feature is its ability to handle negative XPath healing processes. If one XPath fails, Tosca can utilize backup XPaths to ensure test cases do not fail due to locator issues, thereby focusing on identifying application-side issues, which is the ultimate goal."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We have enterprise-level customers."
"The model-based scriptless automation is the most valuable feature because it needs less maintenance as compared to script-based automation."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"The document object model or some aspects of it has a bit of a learning curve."
"Tricentis Tosca currently does not support any mobile testing and can be improved."
"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."
"You need to spend much more time learning the tool and how to use it, compared to others."
"Tricentis Tosca could improve on its mobile automation solution."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Bitbar is ranked 27th in Functional Testing Tools while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Bitbar is rated 7.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bitbar writes "It's helped me when I've been short of devices and want to test whether the application will work on a specific device or not". 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 ". Bitbar is most compared with BrowserStack, SmartBear TestComplete, Sauce Labs, CrossBrowserTesting and LambdaTest, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim. See our Bitbar 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.