BrowserStack vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

BrowserStack and Tricentis are both solutions in the Functional Testing Tools category. BrowserStack is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while Tricentis is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.1. BrowserStack holds a 10.2% mindshare in FT, compared to Tricentis’s 18.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BrowserStack users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

BrowserStack

Read 26 BrowserStack reviews

5,177 Views
4,815 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Tricentis Tosca

Read 112 Tricentis Tosca reviews

21,494 Views
11,822 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

BrowserStack

Tricentis Tosca

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 14, 2025

Tricentis Tosca and BrowserStack compete in the test automation and browser/device testing categories. BrowserStack appears to have the upper hand with its extensive browser and device coverage, crucial for cross-platform testing.

Features: Tricentis Tosca provides a scriptless test automation solution, enabling easy use for non-technical users. Its model-based approach supports a wide array of technologies, making it adaptable. BrowserStack excels in cross-browser compatibility and real device testing, offering valuable tools for mobile app testing across various platforms.

Room for Improvement: Tricentis Tosca faces some issues with upgrades affecting functionality and lacks certain UI features for test visualization. Its handling of non-GUI applications and complex test cases needs enhancement. BrowserStack users report occasional connectivity issues and slower performance, with improvements desired in GPS testing and platform integration.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Tricentis Tosca is suited for on-premises deployment and offers a robust support network, though response times can be slow. BrowserStack's cloud-based model allows quick deployment, with efficient customer service and prompt responses. Both platforms provide comprehensive customer support, but Tricentis has some scalability and incident handling areas to improve.

Pricing and ROI: Tricentis Tosca is considered expensive with a complex licensing structure, yet users report significant ROI through reduced testing efforts. BrowserStack is also costly but more affordable than some competitors, offering cost-effectiveness with its device and browser offerings. Both solutions yield positive ROI through productivity gains and reduced manual testing efforts.

To learn more, read our detailed BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca Report (Updated: August 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca

August 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,497 peers since 2012

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

4th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (1st)

Tricentis Tosca

Ranking in Functional Testing Tools

1st

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

112

Ranking in other categories

Service Virtualization (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of BrowserStack is 10.2%, down from 11.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 18.5%, up from 18.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Tricentis Tosca	18.5%
BrowserStack	10.2%
Other	71.3%

Functional Testing Tools

Featured Reviews

ANand Kale

Sr Practice Lead - Business and Experience Transformation at Peristent Systems

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.

Read full review

PrabhuKrishnamoorthy

Senior Director at Ascendion

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.

Read full review

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 most valuable feature is the variety the solution offers around the different types of devices, especially mobile devices."

"Maintenance of the solution is easy."

"The most valuable features are the variety of tools available."

"I have found that BrowserStack is stable."

"The speed of the solution and its performance are valuable."

"The product guides and resources are extensive and very helpful."

"We like the model device factory for iOS and Android devices."

More BrowserStack pros

"Very user-friendly and the low code automation is really helpful."

"It's a simple tool, particularly in terms of system testing. You can also convert and automate using Tricentis Tosca with ease."

"Object Identification Wizard."

"It has helped teams within our organization become more aware of the testing requirements in terms of risk and priority."

"The Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us."

"The scriptless automation tool is one of the important features."

"The low code is the best feature."

"The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution."

More Tricentis Tosca pros

Cons

"BrowserStack operates at a slow pace, it could improve by making it faster."

"I haven't seen AI in BrowserStack, making it in an area where improvements are required in the product."

"We are struggling to do local testing."

"There is room for improvement in pricing."

"Connectivity can sometimes mar the testing experience."

"We had some execution issues."

"If you are inactive for 30 minutes, the solution will close."

"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."

More BrowserStack cons

"I would like to see better integration with other testing tools."

"It would be of great help if they can fix the loading or performance issues. Sometimes, when I create the test case folder and test cases, it feels like it has loading or performance issues. When passing the objects, we can't sometimes find the exact element. We need to find out that exact location and just give the path for that, and then it works. In the pipeline, when creating Jenkins, we create the list execution for passing the execution list to the commander. I feel it is a bit late, by a fraction of seconds. I first thought it could be my mistake or a setting issue, but I worked on that, and it's not a mistake or a setting issue."

"Might have a learning curve, as it does not follow the traditional Record-Play functionality, but tests have to be built from requirements or Agile story cards."

"There have been some setbacks because of upgrades. While Tosca has been around for a while, Tricentis has catered to smaller clients and I don't think they have done such a large, at-scale transition or transformation before or worked with a company like ours, which is doing an enterprise-wide transformation. When we go to their customer advisory-board meetings, upgrades have been an issue. They have been working a lot to make upgrades seamless."

"Running the regression – if multiple lists are executed at once or if a list contains 200+ tests, it’s a pain to stop the execution."

"Tricentis Tosca could improve on its mobile automation solution."

"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 solution needs to improve its simulation of mobile environments. Right now, that aspect is really lacking."

More Tricentis Tosca cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"As for pricing, I can't provide a clear evaluation as I'm not directly involved in those discussions."

"This solution costs less than competing products."

"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."

"Compared to other solutions, BrowserStack is one of the cheapest."

"The price is fine."

"The price of BrowserStack is high."

"BrowserStack could have a better price, but good things have a price."

"The pricing of the solution comes as part of our Tosca bundle."

"Pricing for Tricentis Tosca could be improved because it's very expensive."

"Tricentis Tosca is not expensive at all."

"It is expensive."

"Pricing could be better."

"The pricing and licensing of Tricentis Tosca were alright. Many customers look for end-to-end enterprise solutions, there were not many challenges with the pricing. However, the customers who are coming from Selenium or similar, feel they're paying a premium for this Tricentis Tosca license. If the right person is there for the implementation of the Tricentis Tosca, then it is one of the best tools in the market."

"Tricentis Tosca is an expensive solution and there is an annual license required. The whole licensing process is confusing and it could be made easier."

"Tricentis Tosca should improve its pricing. It is expensive."

More Tricentis Tosca pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

University

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Retailer

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	10

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	22
Midsize Enterprise	24
Large Enterprise	72

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about BrowserStack?

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with BrowserStack?

In terms of improvements, they can make it snappier. Everything kind of works. They have locked down the phones, which is problematic because there are some test cases that require access to things...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Comparisons

LambdaTest vs BrowserStack

Compared 34% of the time

Sauce Labs vs BrowserStack

Compared 22% of the time

Perfecto vs BrowserStack

Compared 17% of the time

CrossBrowserTesting vs BrowserStack

Compared 4% of the time

Selenium HQ vs BrowserStack

Compared 3% of the time

More BrowserStack Competitors

Worksoft Certify vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 11% of the time

OpenText Functional Testing vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 9% of the time

Katalon Studio vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 9% of the time

Testim vs Tricentis Tosca

Compared 8% of the time

More Tricentis Tosca Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack

September 2025

Download BrowserStack product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis Tosca

August 2025

Download Tricentis Tosca product report

Also Known As

No data available

Orchestrated Service Virtualization

Overview

BrowserStack is a cloud-based cross-browser testing tool that enables developers to test their websites across various browserson different operating systems and mobile devices, without requiring users to install virtual machines, devices or emulators.

BrowserStack

Tricentis Tosca offers model-based testing that supports both technical and non-technical users through a user-friendly interface, enabling scriptless automation and seamless integration with UI and non-UI applications.

Tosca's modular approach enhances test maintenance and reuse while delivering comprehensive automation for diverse testing environments. Backed by risk-based testing and automated data management, it supports end-to-end testing across API, SAP, and desktop applications. Tosca's integration capabilities extend to environments like Salesforce, PHP webshops, and mobile apps, effectively enhancing Agile team workflows. Despite its strengths, room remains for improved reporting, object recognition, and more efficient upgrade processes. Enhancing documentation and mobile testing support could further elevate its functionality for many.

What key features does Tricentis Tosca offer?

User-friendly interface: Simplifies interactions for non-technical users.
Model-based testing: Facilitates the easy creation of automated test cases.
Scriptless automation: Enables quick test development without coding.
Integration capabilities: Supports connections with multiple platforms like SAP and Salesforce.
Modular approach: Enhances the reuse and maintenance of test components.

What benefits to expect from Tricentis Tosca?

Efficiency: Streamlines the testing process for faster release cycles.
Versatility: Suitable for diverse application environments including web and desktop.
Productivity: Boosts Agile team integration for comprehensive testing.
Risk-based testing: Prioritizes testing efforts based on potential impact.

In retail, Tricentis Tosca automates inventory and transaction testing, ensuring efficient system updates. Financial services employ it for regulatory compliance through automated test scenarios in mainframe and PDF environments. Telecommunication companies utilize Tosca for API testing, aligning services across network platforms seamlessly.

Tricentis

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

Buyer's Guide

BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca

August 2025

Free Report: BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca

Find out what your peers are saying about BrowserStack vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: August 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.