We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and Tricentis Tosca based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: After comparing all parameters, Selenium HQ seems to be the more popular choice, since it is open-source and has very good documentation and community-based support available.
"The ability to present your tests on a wiki page and hooking them up to the scripts/fixtures."
"The primary benefit is its cost and the ability to use the cloud."
"It is a good automation tool."
"The plugins, the components, and the method of the library with Selenium is very user defined."
"The most valuable feature of Selenium HQ is the ability to create automatic tests that can replicate human behavior."
"The solution is very easy to implement."
"Some of the most valuable features of this solution are open-source, they have good support, good community support, and it supports multiple languages whether you use C-Sharp or not. These are some of the most important benefits."
"The grids, as well as the selectors, are the most valuable features."
"We can also create customized functions. For example, if something isn't supported in Tricentis Tosca Commander, we can create our own function to integrate it with Tosca Commander, so we can utilize it and integrate with the macros."
"The tool can be handled without any knowledge in parameterisation, especially the TestCaseDesign which makes the tool mighty and stable."
"Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people."
"For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"The low code is the best feature."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is the recovery and cleanup process. Suppose there is a list of test cases and one test case has failed, it should not impact the other test cases. We can reuse the same test case. We can change the configuration of parameters and then use the test cases on the same thing. So, that's a useful thing. Otherwise, we have to use the cleanup process. Another useful feature is to have our own library files. We can create our objects in the libraries and reuse them. There is no need to create duplicate data for that. They have been giving some enhancements recently which means integration is also there. They've integrated with different software like Jenkins, Bamboo. So, we can also create pipeline points. They have recently given SAP and everything, which is very useful."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"The solution is open-source, so everyone relies on the community to assist with troubleshooting and information sharing. If there's a complex issue no one has faced, it may take a while to solve the problem."
"In the beginning, we had issues with several test cases failing during regression. Over a period of time, we built our own framework around Selenium which helped us overcome of these issues."
"Whenever an object is changed or something is changed in the UI, then we have to refactor the code."
"Selenium is good when the team is really technical because Selenium does less built-in methods. If it came with more built-in and pre-built methods it would be even easier for less technical people to work with it. That's where I think the improvement can be."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"Technical support isn't very good. Sometimes their recommendations were not very clear."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
"With regard to areas of improvement, report customization should be easier. It would be good if Tosca could provide standard reports for at least 20 variants. At present, there are only three to four variants. The mobile engine needs to be faster and easier to use; it is a bit cumbersome. Also, the object identification in the mobile engine needs improvement. I would like to see easy-to-use customizations for reports in the next release."
"The support we received from Tricentis Tosca was good, but it can improve."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"Primarily I'm dealing with customers looking for a cheap solution, and they are willing to try open-source automation solutions. So from this perspective, the price of Tosca is not as competitive."
"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."
"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."
"ScratchBook execution needs to be improved as Tosca crashes multiple times."
"It can be quite expensive."
Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Easy to use with great pricing and lots of documentation". 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 ". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio, OpenText Silk Test and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Tricentis qTest. See our Selenium HQ vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Regression 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.