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

CrossBrowserTesting 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

CrossBrowserTesting
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 July 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of CrossBrowserTesting is 0.9%, down from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 19.2%, up from 17.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

CN
Knowledgeable support, scalable, and stable
We use CrossBrowserTesting for testing our web-based applications We had some issues with the onboarding process and the cloud conductivity could improve. I have used CrossBrowserTesting within the past 12 months. CrossBrowserTesting is stable. I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable.…
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 ability to choose from many devices is the best feature."
"CBT has made it easier to troubleshoot issues across devices when we do not have actual access to those specific devices. I even opt for CBT sometimes when we do have access to the device just because it is easier."
"When developing new pages that have questionable functionality or coding, we will often use CBT to test it in a browser. CBT works with our testing environment and development site."
"Video recording of the script running in a cloud server."
"I am able to continuously test my new releases across browser versions without issues."
"Each new session started with the live testing feature allows for a cleared browser and new experience to be able to not only see these attributes on the page clearly but also pass clean data."
"When I started to work on testing automation, I was very excited about how easy it is to run tests on different browsers. It was just a matter of configuration."
"I have found CrossBrowserTesting to be scalable."
"The solution is script-less, so you don't need IT knowledge to use the solution in an operational way. This is the most valuable feature. It's also only one of two or three tools that can do good automation on SAP, and in my opinion, it's the best of those."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is it is a completely scriptless automation tool, which I liked a lot. They keep on continuously improving their tools, wherever we are facing any challenges they are able to provide a solution for it. It is easy to learn, everyone can easily read and understand what is happening with the scripts. Any business user or function tester can use the tool efficiently. This is a complete solution package."
"The platform's most valuable feature is model-based testing, which is effective for test case design and optimization."
"What I find valuable is that Tricentis is always refining the test methodology. They listen to feedback from the analysts about what the testing tool should do, and then Tricentis always implements it. So all the necessary testing functions are already implemented in their tools."
"Software testing tool that has multiple features. It's good to use for SAP testing, and it helps reduce test execution time."
"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is the Tosca Commander. Functionality is another thing I find most valuable in the solution."
"It can provide all levels of testing from design to execution to reporting."
 

Cons

"It would be useful if we can run the live-testing test cases on multiple platforms at the same time, instead of waiting for one session to finish."
"The five minute timeouts can cause irritation if you have just popped away to consult some supporting documentation."
"The "Getting Started" documentation for Selenium testing could be improved."
"I have experienced some lagging issues, and it does not seem like all of the testing environments are configured the same."
"A wider range of physical devices with more browser versions in the Selenium Grid would be great to insure users with out-of-date devices are able to interact with our sites."
"Sometimes the testing is slow."
"The speed connection in mobile devices could be improved, because sometimes the load time is uncertain."
"Sometimes, some of their instances fail, particularly in older versions of browsers."
"It is quite difficult to integrate the solution with other tools."
"The solution needs to improve its simulation of mobile environments. Right now, that aspect is really lacking."
"When using it with iOS devices, I cannot start automation directly and must use a remote machine."
"They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies."
"The product's test case management functionality needs enhancement."
"The tool lags in client-based applications. We have also encountered issues with the features in integrations."
"One thing to improve in Tricentis Tosca is that it's not compatible with Excel based forms. Another area for improvement is that the tool is not compatible with OpenText applications. The support and licensing cost for it also need improvement. The tool also needs cloud support, as it's currently on-premises only."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"CrossBrowserTesting offered the best value for its price."
"It is worth the pricing as the product is supported on multiple platforms and browsers."
"SmartBear offers bundles of products that work together."
"The lowest price point is very reasonable. It is also useful if only one person in the company needs to check on the browser display."
"A few intermediary pricing options for small QA teams would be nice, e.g., unlimited screenshots, "as you need it" parallel tests, etc."
"Pricing could be better."
"Tosca is expensive. I don't see small and medium customers going for it. It's always large enterprises that have a big pocket. It is very expensive as compared to the other tools that we have in the market. They should reduce the price by half, and if they do that, they would do better business. From the competition perspective, other solutions are at a pretty similar level. UiPath is also very expensive. One thing that I always wanted was a short-term consumption license. With Tricentis, the biggest challenge is that you have to go for a minimum of one year license, and they also try to sell you a three-year license. It would be good if people can get a three-month or four-month consumption license."
"​It is an expensive tool compared to other test automation tools. It has a lot of advantages over other tools."
"There are different types of licenses: enterprise or professional. The cost varies."
"A competitor of Tricentis Tosca: Katalon Studio, is very similar and offers lower pricing, though Tricentis Tosca offers more features and benefits."
"A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros."
"Tricentis Tosca is an expensive tool and the licensing is not simple."
"In terms of the licensing costs for Tricentis Tosca, we are spending more or less $70,000 per year. We have a very complex mechanism because there are some business users and some BI users, so the licensing structure is not simple, but support is included."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Real Estate/Law Firm
10%
Healthcare Company
8%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Accenture, Sony, Los Angeles Times, ADP, Verizon, T-Mobile, Wistia
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 CrossBrowserTesting vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
860,825 professionals have used our research since 2012.