Tricentis Tosca Reviews

My main use case for Tricentis Tosca is to automate web applications, and I have automated UI applications, database, API, and mobile testing as well. I have completed all types of automation including API, UI, DB, and mobile through Tricentis Tosca.

I am using Tricentis Tosca to create our regression test suite based upon the test cases that are written manually. From the use case point of view, I am using Tosca to create end-to-end test case scenarios where I am automating web applications, targeting APIs, and targeting the database. I am currently working on the insurance part, where we have a portal where users can submit claims through a mainframe application. We process the claim from the mainframe application, and then the claim becomes visible using a unique ID on the web part. I am automating that as well, and when users submit a particular document or expense on this portal to get a claim from us as an insurance company, we have an API, so I am automating that as well from Tricentis Tosca itself. I am validating the database entries in that particular test case as well. This gives an end-to-end scenario where I am automating mainframe processes of claims, automating web, automating APIs, and validating data as well.

My use case for end-to-end automation scenario includes also using Tosca Mobile in order to automate mobile applications.

I value Tricentis Tosca because of the maintenance capability. There are many automation tools in the market, but Tosca gives you a single point solution to all of your automation applications, whether it is mainframe, mobile, API, database, Windows application, or web application. Tosca provides a one-stop solution to the whole automation problem. From the maintenance point of view, I can maintain my test cases in a much easier way than with any other coding tool. Tricentis Tosca is a module-based tool, and I can scan modules and based upon that, I can automate my application. Maintenance-wise it is very easy to maintain test cases and run them in the test machines. This feature gives me better management of my data, and I have a TCD, Tosca Test Case Design, in order to maintain my data. Additionally, I also have Tricentis TDS, Tosca Data Service, where I can save important data on the go from my test case to test data services, providing data security as well. The best features of Tosca would be the better use of data-driven testing and the provision of a one-point solution to all types of automation testing.

In my daily work, I rely most on Tosca's better data saving and data security regarding TCD and TDS because it helps me create a large chunk of test cases which are data-driven. There is also a feature called template creation, where I can create a template of a particular test case, and if my data is changing, I can re-instantiate it, and according to my data, my N number of test cases will be made. From a data-driven testing point of view, I prefer Tosca more than other tools such as Selenium.

Tricentis Tosca positively impacts my organization because it provides a full end-to-end automation solution, whether it is mainframe, DB, API, mobile, Windows application, web application, SAP applications, or any kind of application. From my organization's point of view, I am using Tosca for mobile and previously used it to create end-to-end test cases. It has a positive impact since it provides a regression suite, and it saves significant time and manual effort. The manual effort is reduced by more than ninety percent when testing with Tosca.

Manual testing before Tosca took approximately more than two weeks to run the whole regression suite. When I created a regression suite using Tosca, the time was reduced to approximately eight to nine hours. This is a drastic reduction of ninety percent.

I think Tosca can be improved, particularly in AI capabilities because right now Tosca does not have any strong API capabilities. It has some AI features in the newer version, but many organizations have not adopted these due to version-specific problems, as some are still using older versions. From an AI point of view, they can enhance reliability since the world is moving towards AI, and every tool must be integrated. While Tosca has made attempts, I have not used them and they are not widely adopted, so they are stuck in the testing phase in my organization.

I would also mention that while I am currently using Tosca Mobile, the loading part and connectivity issues need improvement. They should better integrate AI features that are already present but not widely used across many organizations. Reliability on the AI aspect needs enhancement for practical application.

From the perspective of governance and security, I believe Tosca can develop its own LLM or leverage third-party LLMs while maintaining security and risk management regarding client data. Many companies prefer using Tosca due to data security, which is crucial. An in-house LLM could significantly enhance its debugging power and provide helpful solutions upon test case failure.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately three point five to four years.

Tricentis Tosca is highly scalable in testing. For example, my company previously used end-to-end test cases for web and API, but Tosca's features allow me to automate mainframe applications as well. I also use Tosca Mobile, enhancing scalability. Tosca should focus on AI capabilities to provide additional features such as script writing in Playwright type scripts, offering options for both module-based and custom script test cases while ensuring cost efficiency.

Customer support for Tricentis Tosca is very good. I can reach out through the virtual agent, create a case, and receive a case number via email. The support team engages actively, providing solutions and scheduling calls for more complex queries, making it easy to get assistance.

I have not evaluated many options before choosing Tricentis Tosca. Previously I used the Cucumber BDD framework with Selenium Java. However, this combination was not easy to debug or maintain with over one thousand test cases. In contrast, Tosca allows much easier maintenance and is more reliable in terms of data security and test execution.

I would advise others looking into using Tricentis Tosca that it is a good tool for complex applications that are difficult to automate with other open-source tools, especially when data security is a concern. It may cost more, but it offers a robust solution that enhances the speed of test case creation, allowing for much quicker setup than tools such as Selenium or Playwright.

I have not used a previous solution and am planning to move to Tosca cloud primarily because it is easier for space and storage management. The on-premise project continues to grow, leading to slower performance regarding storage. This is the main reason for the move.

I have covered pretty much everything needed regarding why I am using Tricentis Tosca and the features that give it an edge over other tools. I would rate this review an eight out of ten.

My primary use cases with Tricentis Tosca involve working mostly on Siebel CRM, Siebel applications, AS/400, SAP Fiori, and SAP ECC systems.

I use its model-based test automation.

In one of the projects, we integrated Tricentis Tosca with Azure DevOps, ADO, and we are displaying results in a graphical manner, representing the results in a graphical format.

The features I find most valuable in Tricentis Tosca are that it's the easiest way to build the scripts and to do the CI/CD process; using Tricentis Tosca is very useful and easy.

Tricentis Tosca's continuous testing capability has improved my software quality assurance processes through its internal feature called DEX, which allows us to configure different agents; it is most useful and helpful for regression, enabling us to configure multiple systems and verify the build in a short-term period while also identifying risk.

In terms of Tricentis Tosca, I assess the impact of risk-based testing on aligning test priorities with business needs as effective, as they have some Live Compare that gives us insights into usage efficiency and component coverage in SAP systems, allowing us to identify the assessment and risk assessment.

In the future, I would like to see improvements in Tricentis Tosca regarding the integration of test management tools, as the current process is very complex; for example, integrating with Jira Xray presents challenges, and there is not an easiest solution available right now.

In terms of additional features I would like to see in the future, the self-healing process in Tricentis Tosca has to improve compared to other tools, as its current self-healing capacity is not that good.

The self-healing process should automatically handle any changes in web applications; for instance, if properties change inside the application, the tool should automatically take care of it, unlike other tools such as Mabl and TestComplete that have better self-healing capabilities.

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca for almost six years.

Regarding the costs, I find that Tricentis Tosca's price is high compared to other tools, and a recent challenge I see is that getting support from their support team is very difficult.

I would rate their technical support a five out of ten.

The overall competence of the support has declined; previously, the support was very good, but recently, it has become difficult to reach them and get solutions, and it's taking a lot of time.

I face these problems across all Tricentis products.

Neutral

Instead of Tricentis Tosca, if it doesn't fit the budget, I recommend UFT as it meets the needs of a complete enterprise-level tool, although it's not currently competitive, with TestComplete being another alternative I would consider next.

I did mention UFT.

TestComplete is another option.

I have experience with SmartBear; I just did a POC and observed the features that the tool offers.

I have been working with UIPath for codeless solutions, and I have done one POC on UIPath as well.

In the latest versions of Tricentis Tosca, they have improved significantly.

My main focus is indeed on Tricentis Tosca.

I would rate this review eight out of ten.

We need to automate the manual test cases written by the manual functional testers. We automate those scenarios, which helps the functional testers in the regression run or in the smoke testing. We create scripts in the automation tool that generate data as well. For example, if we need some kind of data in Salesforce or any Dynamics, we run those scripts with the test data and share the data with the BA or the UAT testers. This is how we are using this tool.

Tricentis Tosca is a codeless tool, making it easy for everyone to understand the transition of how to develop scenarios or test cases.

In Tricentis Tosca, analyzing failures is straightforward because every time it fails somewhere, I get the screenshot, which helps me analyze how and why it failed. It has all the modules, including some pre-built ones that can be reused efficiently.

Compared to other code tools such as Selenium, where I used to develop one script in one day, with Tricentis Tosca I can easily develop one script in four hours or three hours, saving four to five hours in a day.

In Tricentis Tosca, we need to capture the element each time. If they could implement an auto-heal feature, it would capture automatically by detecting it from the page. This would be a beneficial future enhancement.

I am currently working on Leapwork for the last two and a half years.

While deploying Tricentis Tosca in our project, a representative from Tricentis came to our office and helped with everything. This is the best part of Tricentis Tosca automation from Tricentis. They involve a person who thoroughly handles everything and provides transition guidance on how to use the tool. This provides more benefits to customers.

One person who is an admin can easily handle the deployment. The deployment process takes one day.

For performance and stability, Tricentis Tosca deserves a 10 out of 10. The tool can handle a large number of users simultaneously. It never hangs up or requires the machine to be restarted. We don't face any such issues. It can handle a large number of test cases and users efficiently.

Scalability is excellent with Tricentis Tosca. They consistently upgrade and improve features, warranting a 10 out of 10 rating.

I have interacted with the technical support team through their ticket system. When we are stuck or unable to proceed, they are very helpful. They provide 24/7 support with resolution times within one to two hours. In the Indian Time Zone, they provide full-day support during our daytime, making the resolution time very fast.

Positive

I would rate Tricentis Tosca an 8 out of 10 because they don't provide live chat support. Adding this feature would make it easier to use.

Tricentis Tosca is a licensed tool, and currently we don't get much information from the outside world if someone is not able to use it. However, from the support, purchasing, and licensing perspectives, it is superior compared to other tools. It ranks among the top five automation tools available.

Overall review rating: 8 out of 10.

My primary use cases for Tricentis Tosca include SAP testing, end-to-end testing for web applications, API testing, and data integration testing. I use Tricentis Tosca as a customer, implementing its features in various testing scenarios.

The most useful features of Tricentis Tosca include API scanning, basic web application automation, and data validation capabilities. It is easy to automate tasks, highly flexible, straightforward to learn, and easy to maintain.

The Vision AI implementation works very slowly, affecting the speed of our work. The exploratory testing feature is not working for version 2023.1, which we are currently using. It would be beneficial for the Vision AI implementation to undergo improvements to enhance performance.

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca for around seven years.

I find stability issues when using the Vision AI feature; Tricentis Tosca is not very stable. 

Additionally, in DEX execution, which is the unattended mode, it works slowly due to some repository-related issues.

I am fully satisfied with the scalability of Tricentis Tosca, rating it a nine out of ten due to the potential for improvement.

Overall, I rate customer service a five out of ten because they need to improve. The chatbot for incident creation takes a long time and is inefficient. Moreover, there is no way to mark the importance or criticality of incidents when creating them.

Neutral

I previously used TestComplete, a SmartBear product and switched to Tricentis Tosca since TestComplete requires coding knowledge and is not easy to learn or install.

The initial setup of Tricentis Tosca is quite easy, mainly due to the strong support from the Tricentis team, particularly during upgrades or initial installs.

Tricentis Tosca is quite expensive. A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros, compared to TestComplete, which is about 5,000 to 8,000 euros.

In addition to TestComplete, I have experience with Catalon and Eggplant.

The main issue with Tricentis Tosca is its cost, which is very high. Although using Tosca can reduce the number of testers needed compared to open-source tools like Selenium, companies might still need to focus on resources. I would recommend Tricentis reduce the cost of its licenses. 

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten as I am satisfied with it.

My customers' usual use cases for Tricentis Tosca revolve around test automation for automating testing for web, SAP, Salesforce, databases, and APIs.

The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are the modular approach and Vision AI. The modular approach reduces scripting effort by at least fifty percent, which significantly cuts down on the script development time. Reusability is high, resulting in effort reduction. Additionally, the Vision AI feature is really good. The Scan module, reporting, and execution are also highly effective.

The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic. For example, if a button in an application changes, Tricentis Tosca should be smart enough to detect the change and still execute the script seamlessly. Improvements are needed to ensure it responds dynamically to changes in the application.

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca for two to three years.

The stability of Tricentis Tosca is rated ten out of ten. It is very stable. Stability is very important as a failure in the test could result in errors in production, affecting the business and customers directly. For example, in a banking retail company, if the test automation run did not go well, it could result in errors for customers.

I would rate the scalability of Tricentis Tosca as ten out of ten. It covers a breadth of applications and products, demonstrating excellent scalability that I have seen in reality.

I would rate the technical support for Tricentis Tosca as ten out of ten. My experience has been positive; their response to emails or phone calls in tech support is fast, usually between eight to ten hours. They assign single points of contact to each account, providing excellent support.

Positive

I would rate the initial setup of Tricentis Tosca as a nine. The setup involves a lot of underlying components, and it prompts the user to decide on necessary features. This process may be overwhelming for new users who may not be aware of which features to select.

The return on investment with Tricentis Tosca shows a threefold productivity gain. Tasks that typically take ten hours are reduced to two to three hours, representing a threefold productivity gain. There is also a schedule reduction of twenty to thirty percent, leading to faster releases and time to market.

The pricing for Tricentis Tosca is extremely high, and I rate it as ten in terms of expense. It is really pricey in the market, making it more suitable for large enterprises rather than small or medium businesses.

Overall, I rate Tricentis Tosca as a ten out of ten.

I have experience with the automation of software for testing, such as Tosca, Selenium, and others.

We automated the end-to-end process with Selenium, from activation to custom provisioning. I supported the Tosca consultant with Tosca expertise to rebuild the same use case using the Tosca platform.

We're a consulting company. The company bought the licenses for the software, and we're providing consultancy to create a software factory. Some tools have been used for years.

We have manual testing, and we build the same tests using Tosca cross-platform for end-to-end processes. For example, when there's a new portfolio, we push the new offers and do regression tests. 

We also monitor the quality assurance environment for errors when new features are implemented. When there's a project with a new feature, we do the regression part, or if there's a price up, we do automatic testing for efficiency.

It's also the most expensive. You don't do the coding or implementation part because they're hoping to get more users to acquire more licenses. Currently, two people do the coding, and we provide assistance to show the flow for implementation in Tosca, copying what we implemented using Selenium, how we create test data, and the entire end-to-end process. I don't know the detailed features of Tosca. I only see remotely what the other person implementing it does, and we do step-by-step babysitting to migrate the automation from one platform to another.

Tosca can go through platforms to make end-to-end testing across CRM, billing, provisioning, order management flow, and databases to check for errors. It can interface with Azure to open the box and collect evidence, documentation, or the Tosca document that was realized. It can have scheduled tasks to monitor APIs and other services to ensure they are up and working correctly. These are the main functions we use Tosca for. Additionally, it is codeless, making implementation easier. It can be divided into bricks and modules that can be easily aggregated to build new use cases.

It's codeless to speed up the work. But the possibility to also do some coding, I know it's not as fast, but when you can code, you can make Tosca more customizable to fit in some strange cases.

So there should be this possibility, it should be avoided when possible, but to have the possibility to fit all systems and other things where codeless cannot fit. So, it gives flexibility and agility.

From what I've seen with my colleagues who make the software selection, the prices for this software in Brazil are too expensive to be applied to anything but huge customers. I'm surprised because I was in charge of planning and control at the company before, when there was a manager there. Normally, the company has structural licenses that are based on the company they are selling to. I see that these companies cannot spend this money on Tricentis. I think Tosca is losing this type of market. They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies. The same happened in the past with SAP, which changed its policy and also made licenses for low.

It is a very stable product. The technical people I interact with had never complained about any crashes or if it had caused any complaints about those types of problems.

It is a very scalable solution. 

Positive

As a consultant, I use Tosca, Selenium, and more.

I work for Apple Storage, and I'm supporting a team that is making a software selection for a government company. I'm building the evaluation metrics to make the software selection, so I was looking for information online.

I support another team that will have to select software like Panaya Test Dynamix or others to implement automatic testing of SAP.

The return on investment for Tosca is good only for very large companies with high values. It's not affordable for smaller companies. It is not affordable. There are local solutions that, in my opinion, are technically very poor, but they are selling a lot here in Brazil because the companies cannot afford Tosca. The company that is evaluating Tosca right now is a utility company that operates all around the state of Sao Paulo. That state is more or less like Italy in terms of money. I am Italian, and I work in Brazil. It's big in terms of people living and working here and the amount of money that is here. So, Tricentis is losing money, and they would benefit if they changed their license policy.

The licensing is too high. 

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten; it is not a ten because I don't know everything about it. 

From Tricentis, I have used Tosca for test automation and qTest for test management.

I use the solution in my company since many clients use SAP. Most of the clients have some SAP solutions with Fiori and SAP ECC. The last use case we did was on a client, so we are implementing Tosca for automated test cases and for rollouts in different countries. We had about 50,000 automated test cases.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it offers technology coverage because you can automate any technology, like in the mainframe, applications, client applications, or Word documents. I would say that we can automate the entire flow for endpoints where we work with such tools.

I would say the reporting part of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required. I would say that extracting reports is a complicated process because it requires complex environments. At the client's end, when we have a small client, it is a little bit hard to deal with the reporting part. Sometimes, we have to export an Excel file. We can use all of the tool's integration features to extract, but most of the time, when Tricentis does not have all the environments, we need to export such stuff to Excel and work manually.

In the future, there should be some easy ways to export files in Tosca because it uses a specific key language, TQL, to export the data. We need some expert on TQL query language, as it is not very easy to use and export data. In the next release, I believe Tosca should have some user-friendly features.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for seven years. My company acts as a partner of the tool.

It is a stable solution. For all the bugs you have, you get good support from the vendor. I would say it is a stable tool. Sometimes, when you get some issues or some bugs, we contact the tool's support team quickly. In my opinion, it is a stable tool.

It is a good and scalable solution.

The tool was not used globally, but around 700 people used it during the lockdown.

The tool is meant for big businesses.

The solution's technical support has a maximum of two days of SLA. The first point is to contact the support team, and if they don't solve the issue, then you can schedule a live remote session to show the tool's support for the issue. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

For some web applications and APIs, I use Selenium.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud services from Microsoft Azure, but sometimes, it could be AWS as well. I guess it is Azure because my company is also a Microsoft partner.

The solution's deployment does not take a long time. It takes two weeks to configure all the systems and consider the automation scope. The tool has many other features, and implementing everything takes a little bit more time. If you want to run Tosca on many machines in the cloud, you can configure the distributions and executions, which have many features. Tosca installation takes two weeks to start.

In terms of the implementation phase, the first thing is to implement a server machine and install Tosca Server because it offers services where you can set up other Tosca products, but there are licenses that need to be acquired by the vendor. The tool has a feature that is responsible for test data management. Looking inside Tosca, we have to create a framework when you start to work on the folder structure, how you keep the structure on the test case, and so on.

In the beginning of the purchase when you do assessment, the investment depends on the number of executions the client is planning. If there is a project you plan to roll out in many countries, it is a good approach to ensure some return of investment.

The price of the tool is a problem for a lot of Brazilian clients or Latino clients, as it is expensive. Where I work, if one is low price and ten is high price, I rate the tool's price as a ten out of ten. Everybody here understands that it is a really expensive tool. My company also has some clients from the USA or Munich, and even if it is more expensive than the other tools, it is easier to sell the solution. Overall, I can rate the product price as a nine or ten because most of the clients are from Brazil.

In terms of what has significantly improved test automation in Tricentis Tosca, I would say that it is traceability. In Tosca, we can trace the user cases and all the test cases to any extent. We can measure test coverage. From the user-front, it is easy to work with the tool.

Speaking about how the risk-based testing approach of Tosca impacts our clients' testing outcomes, I would say that when we start working on a client, we do some assessments to understand the maturity level of the client based on the past. Also, we work and provide some demo specials, show the features the tool has, and then provide some solutions.

Tosca is not very good for test management. Tricentis has some other tools, like qTest, which is a good option.

I recommend the tool to others.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

I am doing automation for different applications such as SAP, Worksoft, LogJ, Salesforce, and other desktop, web, and other applications.

The scriptless automation tool is one of the important features. It allows for drag-and-drop functionality and demo automation in SAP-based applications, which can be challenging with other automation tools. Model-based automation is another good feature, allowing similar models to work by changing the engine. The integration capabilities with QTES tools, CSE tools, or JIT also improved a lot over the years.

Making it a sense-based tool for Windows-based applications is an improvement. When using it with iOS devices, I cannot start automation directly and must use a remote machine. This could be easier. Moving to a cloud-based application rather than a desktop one could improve Tosca, as well as enhancing mobile automation support.

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca since 2015, so it has been almost eight to nine years.

I would mark the stability around eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability around nine.

Technical support used to be better. It is now a bit difficult to reach out compared to previous experiences. Response through chat has been replaced by chatbots, which has impacted the experience.

Neutral

Initially, the setup was a bit complex, but it has improved significantly and is now very simple. Upgrading to the new version is also easy with the new releases.

For enterprise customers, the cost is manageable because it provides solutions for multiple applications they want to automate. It is comparable to free tools like Selenium, which cannot be competed with due to their cost-free nature.

Overall, I would rate Tricentis Tosca eight out of ten. 

I can recommend it to other users for enterprise customers.

Use cases for Tricentis Tosca include applications that interact with multiple platforms, such as SAP, web applications, and mobile applications. For instance, a typical use case might involve an application that connects to SAP, a web application, and a native mobile application. The workflow may then return to the server and interact with web and SAP systems.

Tosca is coupled with SAP ECC and the SAP application itself.

It offers many features, such as risk-based testing and scenario creation using Kafka. Tosca performs well for web applications, particularly in terms of object identification and overall functionality, but its performance lags when it comes to SAP, client applications, or mobile applications. 

The issue is that even though the components are tightly integrated, object identification can be quite slow, sometimes taking five to ten seconds. This delay is noticeable in UFTA. Additionally, reading data from external Excel files might contribute to the slow performance, though it's difficult to measure this precisely as a parameter.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for two years.

The response and everything were a little bit faster, but for certain scenarios, it took longer.

Neutral

My company faced significant issues in the initial setup while migrating QA scripts to the production environment. The problem is that Tosca is randomly jumbling the steps—what should be a sequential process gets mixed up, with, for example, step three appearing before step one and step five coming after step eight. 

Another team is actively working with Tricentis to resolve these issues. The environment setup has become overly complex and confusing, which should ideally be much simpler.

The first-time deployment was relatively easy. The challenges were on our side, such as obtaining the necessary approvals. It took about a month to complete end-to-end because certain approvals were required on our side.

The value of Tricentis Tosca depends on your company's structure and the duration of the project. For instance, if you have a project that lasts only two to three years and you're trying to implement automation, you may not see a return on investment before the project ends and moves into production support. Production support usually handles random tickets; if it's just regression testing, the tests are repeated without adding much value. This makes Tosca less suitable for short-term projects or applications with limited duration. However, investing in Tosca makes more sense if the application is static and continuously enhanced.

It is more expensive compared to other tools on the market. The cost is a significant factor, and while we try to build client confidence, it’s still a challenge. When the licensing costs are introduced, some clients hesitate or even opt-out. 

From an environmental standpoint, we’ve noticed that some existing scripts stop working whenever a new upgrade or patch is applied. This leads to a time-consuming process of identifying the root cause. We eventually realized that after upgrading the task coverage, the scripts failed because they could no longer identify certain objects or elements. The issue arises without clear information on why the identification failed. The application would launch as usual from a specific location, but the scripts suddenly stopped working after the modules were changed or updated.

Overall, I rate the solution as five out of ten since I face challenges with the environment setup, user management, and other aspects.

It's a very user-friendly tool. Anyone can learn it easily without needing any coding skills. You can just watch the demos or videos, and then start using it because it's very straightforward and user-friendly.

Data management is simple. You can manage and use your data and test cases. Resiliency is a key feature.

There is also version control. 

It has all the features you need. You can see your testing status, generate reports, and have a dashboard to track the progress of your projects. You'll see how many tests passed or failed, how many defects were raised, and other traceability metrics. 

In one go, on the dashboard, you'll get a lot of information so that the management can know what's exactly going on with the testing projects. It's the best.

I would like to see something in terms of AI capabilities. 

I have been using it for four years. 

Technical support is available 24/7. I am satisfied with the support. 

Positive

I work on UFT, Selenium, and a couple of local automation tools as well, like LEAPWORK and AutonomIQ.

I conducted a proof of concept (POC) comparing Tosca with other tools.The benefits, features, and return on investment led me to choose Tosca.

Tosca is a low-code no-code automation tool, allowing direct automation and reusability of test cases. Changes are simple to implement. The user interface is visually appealing and user-friendly. No skilled or professional training is required.

The initial setup is straightforward. It can be done within a couple of weeks. 

It allows for easy tracking and achieving ROI. It integrates with Jira and other tools.

It depends on the project budget. So, it's difficult to quantify the percentage of savings.

There are different types of licenses: enterprise or professional. The cost varies.

The enterprise license is expensive. They have an extra option for the same license, but the price depends on various factors.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. Price is one limitation. There are certifications available, and once you pass, you become certified. The interface is completely codeless. I use it as an enterprise solution, and it saves money for companies.

It saves money for companies, especially for automation. For example, with an automation task, executing the three different lead steps can be complex and require some programming, which can lead to issues.