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."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."
"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."
"I face no challenges or stability issues."
"It's been very helpful to have connectivity with mobile. The tool also identifies some of the actual changes from the recordings on the actual testing suite. That is something that I really like."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"Tricentis Tosca is well integrated with other products like Jira."
"It's stable and reliable."
"We have to automate thousands of test cases and complete end-to-end SAP on business processes. To manually execute these tasks, it would take us at least two months. By automating these tasks using Tosca, now it takes five to 10 days maximum. Tricentis Tosca is a codeless or scriptless automation tool."
"The user interface is very friendly."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a scalable solution."
"The interface is easy to use."
"Its initial setup process is easy."
"The tool has highly detailed debugging features."
"Easy to use and easily scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects."
"The product is good to create big or small projects fastly. It is one of the leaders in the area."
"Might have a learning curve, as it does not follow the traditional Record-Play functionality, but tests have to be built from requirements or Agile story cards."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is expensive compared to other tools in the market."
"The user management could improve in Tricentis Tosca because it is confusing. It would be better to have it in one place. Having to add it to the cloud and to a specific project can be a mess."
"The document object model or some aspects of it has a bit of a learning curve."
"The support we received from Tricentis Tosca was good, but it can improve."
"The product needs to improve its pricing. It also needs to improve the infrastructure and DEX agent setup."
"The solution's documentation could be improved for beginners."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"Its UI could be better."
"The solution's documentation could be improved because it keeps disappearing from the solution."
"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."
"In Visual Studio we still don't have anything which can pinpoint memory leaks on a certain code line."
"One of the problems with this solution is you need to be highly technically skilled to operate it, it is not for everyone."
"It is not good in terms of performance. When you open Visual Studio, you have to wait for a while to process your code. It uses a lot of resources and has a lot of features. If we could disable some of the features, it would be lighter and faster to use. Nowadays, for some of the projects, we use VS Code for JavaScript or Python. VS Code is very light and easy to use, whereas, in Visual Studio, we have to wait because it takes time to compile or run a project. It has a lot of competitors in terms of performance, such as Intelligent ID. Intelligent ID is very easy to use. It has many features, and it is lighter to use than Visual Studio. In terms of error handling, sometimes, it shows an error before you finish your code, which can be improved. It would be good if it has a version for Linux. I use VS Code on Linux, but I am not sure if Visual Studio has a version for Linux."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 96 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 7th in Functional Testing Tools with 46 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 OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman and SmartBear TestComplete, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and TestRail. 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.
