For ROI, when we originally planned, we had thought it would be somewhere around $13 to $20 million. Right now, we're looking at $14 million over the three-year period.

Most clients I come across prefer open-source solutions and may move towards Selenium to keep the tool cost down. However, if we are using commercial tools like this one, it will take two to three years to realize an ROI.

The solution is worth the money.

While our teams are seeing a great benefit, I wouldn't say we see a return on investment. ROI can be subjective.

ROI is one of the reasons we're trying to get Tricentis Analytics set up, so we can provide factual data on the test cases and the return. We have KPIs set up to help us with that.

There were instances where it used to take a massive amount of time for performing the automation using a certain specific scenario. If a normal tester tries to open the file itself, it takes approximately eight minutes. Later on, we have to go and verify each and every value in that particular Excel and cells, which typically can take two to three weeks of time. 

Using automation in Tricentis Tosca, it can be done in a single system in less than 10 minutes, the whole process. This is a substantial ROI for the customers because they were saving a lot of time. Normally for the opening of Excel itself, it takes 10 minutes. I understand the different things that can be done there has been a lot of saving that the customer has voiced. They appreciated the solution and they are utilizing Tricentis Tosca for everything they need automation for, such as EPAs.

The tool is worth its cost. 

I've seen a return on investment from the tool, but only when it was used long term, e.g. in more than three years time.

If we did not have Tricentis Tosca we would have to use three more testers to do everything manually. The solution has helped our company.

We have seen an ROI because we are able to automate test scripts much quicker.

An exceptionally good ROI, as we reduced the number of Tests from 4000 to around 89 scenario's which can be run in an automated manner with additional data (so in actuality we have around 1.4M tests, which can theoretically be run without human intervention). We have a full-stack CI pipeline for running these along with JIRA (requirement gathering and test results per Story), to the final TeamCity run for each check-in to the Dev branch.

We felt the benefits within the first year. I would recommend in-house management.

ROI has been pretty high, but only in comparison to the tools we had from HP earlier. However, maintenance costs, and not having Tosca experts available, are the factors that have adversely affected the ROI in some cases.

Generally we see our clients achieve positive ROI within one to three years. This is along with other non-financial benefits which can be achieved immediately e.g. decreased execution time.

ROI is high because of the market that is switching more and more to agile, automated testing, and our company also develops add-on for Tosca.

It's hard to calculate because there is no base available to compare with. However, test automation and management setup can be done very fast, and it has lower real costs when compared to doing a manual test execution for three or four times.

We have achieved complete ROI.

We have used Tosca for a long time now. Recent new projects on Tosca have a ROI between one and two years. The cost driver is less the tool than the project effort.