We performed a comparison between Tricentis Tosca and Visual Studio Test Professional 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."The scalability is a valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca."
"The model-based scriptless automation is the most valuable feature because it needs less maintenance as compared to script-based automation."
"The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"We like the fact that it works across mobile, desktop, web, and APIs. Due to this, the solution has a broad range of applications."
"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."
"For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Tosca Commander."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"Visual Studio is an exemplary integrated development environment that stands out due to its exceptional features. It allows for the seamless selection of the appropriate programming language for the specific development tasks at hand. This facilitates a swift and effortless transition between languages, providing a highly efficient development experience."
"Visual Studio is the easiest to use."
"Code testing is the most valuable feature of this solution for developing software."
"It is a very common and strong product. A lot of support is available for this product."
"Performance-wise, it is a great tool."
"It is very easy to use. You can handle a lot of things together at once in one package, which is a good point for us."
"The whole suite is made for .NET development."
"The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper."
"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."
"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."
"It can be quite expensive."
"Parallel execution is not yet implemented for Tosca. This means you can't execute the same test case on multiple machines remotely."
"What needs to be improved in Tricentis Tosca is its centralized repository mechanism because it's not as flexible. The repository in the solution where you store the data and the script for test automation is quite an old-fashioned mechanism that could be improved."
"The reporting function was lacking in usability and detail."
"The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows."
"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."
"It needs more integration with other tools for monitoring. Microsoft also needs to make it more modern to make it work with microservices and the cloud. It is a bit outdated currently."
"The solution's deployment is not very easy and should be made easier."
"Sometimes, the solution hangs, so its performance could be improved."
"It could be available for multiple platforms and other operating systems like Mac with a native port."
"The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user."
"The data flow can be improved."
"The product must provide more integration."
"The interface should be made attractive."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 47 reviews. Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, OpenText UFT One, Worksoft Certify, Postman and Testim, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and Katalon Studio. See our Tricentis Tosca vs. Visual Studio Test Professional 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.
