Tricentis Tosca Previous Solutions
We used Selenium before Tricentis Tosca. We chose the product because of its time-saving and ease-of-use features. It also helps us to be more productive.
View full review »I previously used Micro Focus UFT Developer. However, back then, there were significant differences between Micro Focus UFT and Tricentis Tosca.
View full review »NM
NibsMishra
AVP, Testing Service Owner at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
In terms of model-based, scriptless automation, Tosca is the first of its kind in our organization. We have been using Ruby Cucumber and Selenium, but they are all solutions where development and coding skills are needed. This is our first model/scriptless tool.
We have an automation solution which was primarily Ruby Cucumber, but Ruby requires development skills. We had not been able to penetrate it into all the places we wanted it to be used. We have a lot of legacy and mainframe applications and there was a lot of downward testing still going on. On the digital applications and the go-forward applications, we have a good footprint from a Ruby perspective and test automation. But in all these legacy applications and some of the older technology applications, we had manual testing going on.
We had a big goal as a company. We had done some benchmarking studies and what came out from them was that we are pretty good from a quality perspective when compared to our peers, but we are very expensive. So we were charged with a couple of things: to bring down the expense and increase speed, while maintaining the quality if not improving the quality. That's what led us on the path to Tricentis Tosca.
When using Ruby, there are more hands-on coding development skills. Tosca is something that needs a technical mindset or aptitude, but even our manual testers were able to make the shift from manual testing to automation using Tosca. That was a big driver: How do we move from manual testing to more automation and how do we not impact the big workforce that we had in manual testing? We did not want to have to let go of all manual testers, and we didn't have enough skills from a Ruby perspective. With this effort, we have been successfully able to convert around 80 percent of our manual testers to automators, using Tosca.
There are areas in our company which have Ruby, some of the digital areas, where it works. So we are letting those areas stay with Ruby.
View full review »Buyer's Guide
Tricentis Tosca
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about Tricentis Tosca. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.
SK
Srihari K
Senior Software Engineer at MOURI Tech
I've also used Micro Focus and Selenium.
View full review »I did use another solution and used a combination of Tosca and UFT. That was five years ago, and the Tosca technology was a bit different. We were not able to scan the system attributes, for example, using Tosca back then. I introduced another automation tool to open it and run the script and then get back to the original script. It was like a work-around and, at the time, it was successful.
View full review »If you use other solutions, such as Selenium or UFT, but we had issues in identifying objects. We did not have the same issue with Tricentis Tosca.
View full review »I have worked on QTP/UFT and SAP TAO for SAP automation. Considering no-code automation, easy maintenance, and integration capabilities with 150 + applications, I selected TOSCA for an automation solution.
View full review »KC
Khushal Chate
SAP Test Manager at Apexon
We used Micro Focus UFT and SmartBear. UFT requires a framework each time, and SmartBear requires coding. Both of these solutions had limitations with regard to our enterprise-level technology stack, and therefore, we decided to go with Tricentis Tosca.
View full review »I have used many other solutions, such as Selenium and Worksoft Certify.
We used to use WorkSoft Certify as a solution, then we moved to Tricentis Tosca recently. The reason we switched was the slowness of the automation scripts and some of the areas, such as a drag and drop issue we had where we cannot drag and drop in WorkSoft Certify. We were able to do this with other automation tools. Our teams started switching to Tricentis Tosca rapidly because the exhibition time is a lot faster and more efficient compared to other automation tools. They can directly jump into automation.
Another major reason why the customers are switching to Tricentis Tosca is that the customer can read and understand what is happening in the script, which is not the case with other automation tools, such as Selenium. You need a developer or automation tester to explain what is happening in the script, and you need to provide some comments or explanations. Whatever automation was done in Tricentis Tosca, the customer themselves can read and understand what is happening in the script. This was a good selling point.
View full review »JK
reviewer1079316
Manager SDLC Automation at a wholesaler/distributor with 10,001+ employees
We used IBM Rational or Functional Tester and it was just outdated and we needed to go down the toolset. We also wanted something that we use as a data model.
View full review »RB
reviewer1215411
Global QA Manager at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
We used Selenium before Tosca. One of the reasons we decided to look at other tools was that, with Selenium, the maintenance of the scripts started becoming higher. The more and more that test cases were built, the higher the maintenance cost was and we started seeing a diminishing return as a result.
Also, you really can't do database testing, for the most part. There are ways around that limitation, but it just doesn't work very well with Selenium.
From a reporting standpoint, you really can't produce robust reports like you can within Tosca.
Finally, the infrastructure with Selenium is a little bit more challenging and there's really no built-in test management with Selenium as well.
View full review »We have used HPE UFT (formerly known as QTP) and Selenium, but some of the critical applications that we needed required different automation tools so we switched to Tricentis Tosca.
View full review »MK
Manish Kum@r
Senior Technical Automation Specialist at Sixsentix
I previously used a different solution. I switched to Tosca because it has much faster turnaround time and is very easy to scale up.
View full review »AH
reviewer970854
Sr. Product Manager - Intelligent Automation & RPA at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Our teams use qTest for a lot of test management and test planning, and some of the IT teams use qTest heavily, whereas a couple of the application teams, use Tosca.
View full review »AZ
reviewer1922475
Lead QA Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
I have not tested any other SAP-related testing tools. The only tool I tested hands-on was Tricentis Tosca, and it suited the needs of my company, so it's the product we're using.
View full review »MK
Manish Kum@r
Senior Technical Automation Specialist at Sixsentix
I was using Selenium WebDriver a few years ago.
I switched to Tricentis Tosca because of its methodology and support for more than one hundred technologies.
View full review »LV
reviewer1958490
Architecture Manger at a government with 201-500 employees
I have not used a similar solution prior to Tricentis Tosca.
View full review »I've used a lot of different automation tools. I'm a contractor. I go into different organizations. So, I didn't really switch. This company was using it.
View full review »DS
Deepak Shinde
IT Consultant with 10,001+ employees
We did use different solutions. We moved to Tosca because:
- It offers a complete automation solution for all of our applications streams.
- Other technologies were unsupported and fell short on our requirements
We are also in process of moving to Tosca for other functions.
We previously used other tools but our clients switched to Tricentis because of its ease of use.
View full review »We have used previous versions so this was down to an upgrade.
View full review »It's very good.
View full review »MS
MohamedSoliman
Software QA Automation Engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
I also have experience with Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, and Ranorex.
View full review »We didn't use a previous solution, but I've personally worked with other tools. Testsuite is versatile, and that was the big thing about choosing it. We're using Power Builder, which Testsuite can support, along with other applications. So it's great having one tool instead of many.
View full review »AO
Aiham Obaidat
DevOps lead at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
I have previously used Selenium in the company I used to work for and it was perfect. The solution was very good at testing web applications, but not Windows, or desktop applications. Tricentis Tosca does not have customized reporting tools ready but Selenium you can build and customize whatever you want.
View full review »JH
reviewer1095432
Conductor with 11-50 employees
I have experience with Selenium HQ and Parasoft.
We conducted a SOAtest using Parasoft. Tricentis Tosca is different and better, because it has a reusable model, whereas the others do not.
View full review »SM
Shweta Mukkawar
Technical Lead at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Previously, we did not work with any other solution.
View full review »ZS
reviewer1183092
Senior Test Consultant at a outsourcing company with 51-200 employees
I have also been using TestComplete. It is a simpler product to use and I was learning through using it. I didn't have to do any training. There were points where I needed to check the documentation concerning limitations
View full review »Did not. I did however look at several competitors and found this to be the best overall.
View full review »HP QTP, We switched because of maintenance of scripts and test cases.
View full review »Tosca was chosen by the customer before we started the project.
View full review »Yes, have been using HP QTP and Selenium for Test Automation. Switch was mainly due to Team constraints and management wanting to try a new tool which is easier for the Business Analysts also to collaborate with.
View full review »In our department there was not a different solution in place.
View full review »Initial setup was straightforward. It took a little bit of juggling to get a central database set up as defaults to working in isolation, but other than that it was OK.
View full review »I was using a different solution, but it required scripting knowledge, which most of my team members did not have.
View full review »We previously (for six years) used QTP, and the client chose to have only Tosca for test automation as the license costs were lower compared to the HP tools.
View full review »The Test Automation team at TTC use many other test automation tools/solutions, and have chosen Tosca as our preferred tool because of it's unique model based approach to test automation. We have found this approach to have many benefits including; ease of use, extendability, robustness, maintainability and scalability.
View full review »UB
Ulrich Becker
QA at proalpha business solutions gmbh
Prior to this solution, we used WinRunner and TestDirector by Mercury Interactive.
The performance with Tricentis Tosca is better.
View full review »We previously used HP Application Lifecycle Management for manual testing. We chose to switch to Tosca because of the test case automation and it offers easier management.
View full review »Not as part of this project, but I used HP Quality Center as a test tool before. I found it much easier to learn as Tosca Testsuite has been devleoped for users with a very good and intuitive user interface.
View full review »No previous version was used.
View full review »I am new to automation and Tosca is my first product.
View full review »MB
MarkusBonner
Release Test Manager at a tech company with 201-500 employees
We used, and still use, our test tools depending on the test focus. But we switch to Tosca whenever respective functionalities are stable, usable in our tests.
No, Tosca was my first automation experience.
View full review »We switched from Python for fast access of files.
View full review »Previously, we were using Selenium. We switched to Tosca due to the less maintenance aspect and the wide technology support which it provides.
This was my first automated testing tool.
View full review »Selenium WebDriver requires good skillset of coding. However, TOSCA is scriptless, hence anyone can learn it easily.
View full review »I prefer TOSCA over other tools.
View full review »I have been working on different test automation tools and I was introduced to Tosca because of the technology that it supported for our applications. The current test automation tool was unable to provide a solution for our .NET Windows-based application, which Tosca provided out-of-the-box.
View full review »We switched as there is no scripting required. The framework is inbuilt, hence maintenance is easier.
View full review »We used Soap UI and Selenium (Open source tools). We switched to Tosca because the organization decided to make the switch.
We have used Selenium WebDriver and still are using the same solution.
Buyer's Guide
Tricentis Tosca
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about Tricentis Tosca. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,386 professionals have used our research since 2012.