We performed a comparison between BrowserStack and Tricentis Tosca 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."It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"Testing across devices and browsers without maintaining that inventory is invaluable."
"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."
"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."
"The most valuable feature of BrowserStack is the ability to do manual testing."
"The most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."
"BrowserStack has lots of devices to choose from."
"The technical support is good, we were satisfied."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"We are satisfied with the support of Tricentis."
"This tool has test data management capability along with test management."
"Multiple scanning engines to automate many different applications."
"This solution is very easy to learn and any non-programmer or manual tester, with little experience in automation, can pick it up quite easily."
"BrowserStack should work on its Internet connectivity although issues only occur occasionally."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"The solution is slow."
"We are having difficulty with the payment system for the BrowserStack team, as they only accept credit cards and we are encountering some issues."
"We had some execution issues."
"Adding better integration with frameworks, particularly testing frameworks like Robot, would be of more value to customers and make their jobs easier."
"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"While I was testing I was not 100% sure a that was properly mimicking the browsers or not. We had some issues with a browser, and the reason was the browser itself does not provide any support. If the local system does not provide any support, I think this was the problem. There should be better integration with other solutions, such as JIRA."
"The solution is expensive."
"You need to spend much more time learning the tool and how to use it, compared to others."
"The solution needs to improve its simulation of mobile environments. Right now, that aspect is really lacking."
"Primarily I'm dealing with customers looking for a cheap solution, and they are willing to try open-source automation solutions. So from this perspective, the price of Tosca is not as competitive."
"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 needs better integration with JIRA."
"It requires some coding customization that requires expertise."
"Setup wasn't that straightforward; it was more complex. It all depends on the environment, because there were a lot of errors on our applications. Therefore, it wasn't an easy setup for us."
BrowserStack is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 25 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 96 reviews. BrowserStack is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of BrowserStack writes "Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users". 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 ". BrowserStack is most compared with LambdaTest, Sauce Labs, Perfecto, CrossBrowserTesting and Bitbar, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with OpenText UFT One, Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman and SmartBear TestComplete. See our BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca 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.
