We performed a comparison between Micro Focus UFT One 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 of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Tricentis Tosca seems to be a superior solution. All other things being more or less equal, our reviewers found that Micro Focus UFT One’s automation capabilities could be improved.
"The shared repositories can be used throughout all testing which makes jobs easier."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"The stop automation is a great feature."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"Compared to other products, UFT One is better, faster, and more accurate."
"With frequent releases, using automation to perform regression testing can save us huge amount of time and resources."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"What I find valuable is that Tricentis is always refining the test methodology. They listen to feedback from the analysts about what the testing tool should do, and then Tricentis always implements it. So all the necessary testing functions are already implemented in their tools."
"The tool can be handled without any knowledge in parameterisation, especially the TestCaseDesign which makes the tool mighty and stable."
"You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues."
"Good use in Agile workshops, where the person needs to conceptualize the tests before the developer provides the complete application interface."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"To me, what stands out the most about Tricentis Tosca is that even if I'm not a technical tester, I could pick up on how to use it very quickly because of the mechanisms of the tool, for example, its scanning mechanism. I'm not so technical, but I'm able to maneuver through Tricentis Tosca and derive capability. It's a user-friendly tool. It's not very complex."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"I face no challenges or stability issues."
"Micro Focus UFT One could benefit from creating modules that are more accessible to non-technical users. Without a developer background or at least basic knowledge of VBScript, using Micro Focus UFT One may not be feasible for everyone. This is something that Micro Focus, now owned by OpenText, should consider in order to cater to business professionals as well. While Micro Focus UFT One does have a recording function, it still requires a certain level of IT proficiency to create effective automation, which may be challenging for those outside of the technical field."
"The product wasn't easy for developers to learn and pick up in the area revolving around scripting for automation, and there was a lot of resistance from developers, causing my company to rely on specialist resources."
"It could work with more browsers other than Internet Explorer, and could better handle new things like Ext JS."
"The UA objects are sometimes hard to recognize, so the coverage should be increased. Open-source alternatives have a broad scope. Also, it's sometimes difficult to make connections between two of the components in the UFT mobile center. It should be easier to set up the wireless solution because we have to set both. We directly integrate Selenium and APM, so we should try to cover all the features they have in APM and Selenium with the UFT mobile."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"One thing that confused me, and now just mildly irritates me, is that we migrated from QuickTest Pro to HP UFT, Unified Functional Test. After we did the migration, it turned out that we didn't really have Unified Functional Test at all."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"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."
"It requires some coding customization that requires expertise."
"Tricentis Tosca could improve on its mobile automation solution."
"The Test Management options are still weak - improvement is outlined, but not yet visible. I"
"The UI does not have the option of automating the scroll bars."
"They can make it more stable. I have used this tool for SAP applications. They have an alliance with SAP, and it mostly worked fine, but there were a few glitches. However, we got the required support from the Tricentis team. They are coming up with their new versions and upgrades with respect to how the Tricentis systems as cloud applications are updated, and it would be good if they have a robust accelerator pack."
"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 would be of great help if they can fix the loading or performance issues. Sometimes, when I create the test case folder and test cases, it feels like it has loading or performance issues. When passing the objects, we can't sometimes find the exact element. We need to find out that exact location and just give the path for that, and then it works. In the pipeline, when creating Jenkins, we create the list execution for passing the execution list to the commander. I feel it is a bit late, by a fraction of seconds. I first thought it could be my mistake or a setting issue, but I worked on that, and it's not a mistake or a setting issue."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". 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 ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman, Testim and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Mobile App 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.
Both products are very useful but it really depends on what you need to test and who is building the tests. We recently chose UFT One over Tosca in a specific use case where identifying images inside a map was needed. UFT uses both OCR and Image recognition where in Tosca you would have to identify specific pixels and those pixels could move depending on what device you were using.
From a test building perspective, I feel it is easier to build tests in UFT One than in Tosca. UFT One also gives you the ability to develop tests by either writing code or using the record and convert to code option (Allows developers and Business users to work together to build/update the same test).
If you can provide more info on what you are testing and your key drivers, I can try and give more info on what tool may be best.
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing.
MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well suited for CI integrations. We liked it, in particular, because it integrates greatly with other platforms, like .net, QC and Jenkins. An added advantage was the multi-device support.
One of the best advantages of MicroFocus is that it integrates with legacy web technologies and even Windows client applications. Finally, MicroFocus supports cross-browser testing. Regardless of many features, including a test combinations generator and insight recording, it is relatively easy to learn.
That being said, it doesn’t support multiple formats of reporting. For now, UFT only supports exporting reports in HTML or PDF. MicroFocus should allow exporting to Excel, CSV, XML, and other formats. There is a bit of performance degradation of the test environment when executing automation scripts continuously for a long time. The execution can be inconsistent sometimes, and scripting takes a long time. Another downside is the high licensing price.
Tricentis Tosca is an integrated testing solution that includes testing automation and case design approach, risk-based testing, test data management, and service virtualization. The best feature is its versatility in helping both web and desktop applications. It is very reliable and stable. Another great feature is that you can reuse test cases.
The platform supports multiple technologies and devices. It is truly end-to-end. Because it is scriptless, anyone can learn to use it.
As much as we like it, there are downsides to Tosca, too. The price is one of them. It runs a bit expensive, but it is worth it. The test design section is complicated to learn, and the UI takes time to get used to.
Conclusions
Tosca is a better solution in terms of usability and versatility. MicroFocus is better for organizations with legacy web applications.