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

IBM Rational Test Virtualization Server [EOL] vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 14, 2025

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

IBM Rational Test Virtualiz...
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis Tosca
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
112
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (1st), Functional Testing Tools (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), Regression Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

RC
Using service virtualization, we are able to accelerate the testing and development activity
As per my working experience over the last three and half years with RIT/RTVS, I would consider the two following areas of improvement: * Reporting: In the recent release of RCPT, the "Usage graph" feature is included, but that still needs improvements in terms of UI and timeline filtering criteria. * Implementing custom functions is a bit of a tedious job, as ECMAscript does not support some of the standard JavaScript functions. Also, the Script editor window is not user-friendly .
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

"As we have used most of the MQ stub, "MQ recording" is the most useful feature."
"It has very easy and good validation techniques used for SWIFT, XSD, and WSDL validations."
"It's stable and reliable."
"The most valuable feature is being able to create a test case by recording some scenarios and then leasing that task case to other scenarios."
"Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"Tricentis Tosca can be easily integrated with SAP infrastructure."
"Tricentis Tosca is a really cool tool that you don't have to be technical to use it. Additionally, the solution is easy to use. The modules, libraries, and reusable are in an efficient way to update all the tests. I find it spot on with that. We also started using the design which we switched from Excel. The design was superior to Excel."
"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."
"The reporting is really nice."
 

Cons

"User friendliness: I would rate it somewhere around 5/10 in terms of user-friendliness. It can be simpler to build stubs and middle-ware based test cases compared to the solution given by RTVS."
"Reporting: In the recent release of RCPT, the "Usage graph" feature is included, but that still needs improvements in terms of UI and timeline filtering criteria."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present."
"The self-healing feature of Tricentis Tosca needs significant improvement. Currently, it is static and not dynamic."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
"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."
"The integration with mobile testing could be useful."
"They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"I would say the reporting part of the tool is an area of concern where improvements are required."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"IBM RTVS is not that expensive compare to other giants, but it is still much ahead of some other tool having less features."
"The product has a free trial available, which has saves on the initial investment costs."
"Tricentis Tosca is not expensive at all."
"I give the cost of Tricentis Tosca a six out of seven."
"It is expensive."
"It is expensive. There is also the training cost, but it does speed up the process. So, you get a return on 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."
"They are probably more expensive than other comparable tools, but you also get the full suite of testing tools."
"The tool is quite expensive."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the pricing a ten. The licensing model is based on a yearly basis."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Service Virtualization solutions are best for your needs.
869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise72
 

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.
 

Also Known As

Green Hat, IBM RTVS
Orchestrated Service Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sandhata Technologies Ltd., Qantas Airways 
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 Tricentis, Broadcom, OpenText and others in Service Virtualization. Updated: September 2025.
869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.