Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BrowserStack vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

BrowserStack
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.8%, up from 10.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 19.7%, up from 17.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale - PeerSpot reviewer
Good in the area of automation and offers a high test coverage to users
I integrated BrowserStack into our company's web and application test workflows because it has plugins that work with browsers and applications, allowing for cross-browser testing. BrowserStack was really helpful for cross-browser testing in areas involving mobiles, web applications, or tablets. The tool can help with the testing across all applications. I have not experienced any time-saving feature from the use of the tool. My company uses the product for real-device testing since it has a bunch of devices in our library. My company has a repository where we do manual testing. BrowserStack improved the quality of our company's applications. Improvements I have seen with the testing part revolve around the fact that it is able to do testing at a fast pace. The quality of the product is better since it can go through all the parts of the applications, meaning it can provide high test coverage. The tool is also good in the area of automation. The test coverage is higher, and the time taken during the testing phase is less due to automation. I have not used the product's integration capabilities since my company doesn't have the option to look at other QA testing tools like Selenium, which can be used for the automation capabilities provided. The product should offer more support for cross-browser testing, device testing, and testing across multiple devices. I rate the tool an eight out of ten.
PrabhuKrishnamoorthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Has transformed testing by reducing scripting effort and enhancing productivity with advanced features
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The device farm is one of the positive impacts we have seen from using BrowserStack."
"The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult."
"Maintenance of the solution is easy."
"It is a stable solution. There's no lagging and jittering."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."
"I like that it offers full device capability."
"The integration is very good."
"The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"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."
"Multiple scanning engines to automate many different applications."
"It's a simple tool, particularly in terms of system testing. You can also convert and automate using Tricentis Tosca with ease."
"Makes optimal use of Model-based Test practice in getting Object-references from the application."
"The item that is different from all the other tools is that it's module based."
"Tricentis Tosca can be easily integrated with SAP infrastructure."
"Tosca is a low-code no-code automation tool, allowing direct automation and reusability of test cases."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in pricing."
"There is some stability issue in the product, making it in areas where improvements are required."
"We had some execution issues."
"Occasionally, there are disruptions in the connection which can interfere with our testing processes, especially when testing on phones."
"BrowserStack is scalable, but cost is significant for those living in Mexico."
"We are struggling to do local testing."
"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."
"It is difficult to use for someone who has little to no experience."
"Tricentis Tosca currently does not support any mobile testing and can be improved."
"Many times when we have raised a ticket, we did not get an urgent response."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"When using it with iOS devices, I cannot start automation directly and must use a remote machine."
"First, Tricentis could improve Tosca's Linux scripting. We can automate Linux scripting, but there are a few commands that Tosca doesn't support. DVS support and the object identification mechanism could also be better."
"The issue is that even though the components are tightly integrated, object identification can be quite slow, sometimes taking five to ten seconds."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"Tricentis Tosca could improve on its mobile automation solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."
"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."
"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."
"There are different licenses available that can be customized. You can select the features that you want only to use which can be a cost-benefit."
"The price is fine."
"The price of BrowserStack is high."
"This solution costs less than competing products."
"My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses."
"Tricentis Tosca is an expensive tool and the licensing is not simple."
"I am satisfied with the cost."
"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."
"There are different types of licenses: enterprise or professional. The cost varies."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is on the higher side."
"I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to talk about the pricing, but it has some significant costs. For example, you have to pay a license and maintenance fee. Then the rest of the terms are negotiable. We have to consider what we need and what benefit we get from it."
"If you are purchasing less than five licenses, then the pricing is high. On a scale from one to ten, with one being low and ten being high pricing, I would rate this solution at eight."
"The price of Tricentis Tosca is approximately Є10,000 for one license. However, it used to be much cheaper, but they changed their license structure. It used to be a structure where if you bought a license you would receive one year of free support and maintenance. Now they only have a yearly license, and that is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?
The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BrowserStack?
My company found the product's license to be very compatible with our budget, and we pay 5,000 to 10,000 per year for licenses.
What needs improvement with BrowserStack?
I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product. Accessibility testing is an area of concern where improvements are required.
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?
For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, RBS, jQuery, Expedia, Citrix, AIG
HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.