We performed a comparison between SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis Tosca based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Tricentis Tosca is the preferred solution of many PeerSpot users. This completely scriptless automation tool. Tricentis is focused on continuously improving their tools and can provide a solution for almost any challenge. SmartBear currently only supports Windows and is lacking in some necessary API interfaces.
"In TestComplete, I saw a conformed package of a tool that kept everybody in consistency. The team was able to regenerate further tests without having to manipulate more code because the record feature is great."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"The product has many features."
"Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"Multiple scanning engines to automate many different applications."
"You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues."
"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."
"It has helped teams within our organization become more aware of the testing requirements in terms of risk and priority."
"The product enables codeless automation."
"I face no challenges or stability issues."
"The technical support is good, we were satisfied."
"For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"The integration tools could be better."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"This solution could be improved by making it easier to visualize where there is a failure without having to look at it in detail."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The product is not very stable when used with cloud storage. It is very hard to load the screen, making it difficult to use the tool in cloud storage."
"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."
"First, Tricentis could improve Tosca's Linux scripting. We can automate Linux scripting, but there are a few commands that Tosca doesn't support. DVS support and the object identification mechanism could also be better."
"Security, UI, and basic performance improvements could be done to the product to enhance its use."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"Setup wasn't that straightforward; it was more complex. It all depends on the environment, because there were a lot of errors on our applications. Therefore, it wasn't an easy setup for us."
"More and more artificial intelligence (AI) is coming in. So, some amount of AI to create natural language processing (NLP)-based test cases and manage defects would be very helpful. This is because the technologies have evolved in the last five to six months, so there is a potential opportunity there."
"Tricentis Tosca currently does not support any mobile testing and can be improved."
SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 72 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". 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 ". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One, froglogic Squish and Eggplant Test, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Appium. See our SmartBear TestComplete 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.
