We performed a comparison between Parasoft SOAtest, Telerik Test Studio, and Tricentis Tosca based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Katalon Studio and others in Test Automation Tools."The testing time is shortened because we generate test data automatically with SOAtest."
"Parasoft SOAtest has improved the quality of our automated web services, which can be easily implemented through service chaining and service virtualization."
"Good write and read files which save execution inputs and outputs and can be stored locally."
"Since the solution has both command line and automation options, it generates good reports."
"We do a lot of web services testing and REST services testing. That is the focus of this product."
"If you want something that’s not provided out of the box, then you can write it yourself and integrate it with SOAtest."
"They have a feature where they can record traffic and create tests on the report traffic."
"The solution is scalable."
"Before using Telerik Test Studio, I was a manual tester, so it was my first automation tool, yet I felt very comfortable using it. I've used the record and play feature, and Telerik Test Studio was easy to use. The tool was easy to understand, even for a first-time user like me."
"Has a very smooth process for launching and closing the application after execution."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution are the font, size, and interface."
"The way it identifies elements is good."
"The performance and load testing are very good."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are all the test automation functionality. It is a full-scale automation tool."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is the recovery and cleanup process. Suppose there is a list of test cases and one test case has failed, it should not impact the other test cases. We can reuse the same test case. We can change the configuration of parameters and then use the test cases on the same thing. So, that's a useful thing. Otherwise, we have to use the cleanup process. Another useful feature is to have our own library files. We can create our objects in the libraries and reuse them. There is no need to create duplicate data for that. They have been giving some enhancements recently which means integration is also there. They've integrated with different software like Jenkins, Bamboo. So, we can also create pipeline points. They have recently given SAP and everything, which is very useful."
"Object Identification Wizard."
"The technical support is good, we were satisfied."
"It's stable and reliable."
"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."
"With one click, it will scan all the elements on the screen, so that the user can select the required elements for automation tests."
"During the process of working with SOAtest and building test cases, the .TST files will grow. A negative side effect is that saving your changes takes more time."
"The product is very slow to start up, and that is a bit of a problem, actually."
"Enabling/disabling an optional element of an XML request is only possible if a data source (e.g., Excel sheet) is connected to the test. Otherwise, the option is not available at all in the drop-down menu."
"The summary reports could be improved."
"Reporting facilities can be better."
"The performance could be a bit better."
"Compatibility with HTTP 1.1 and TLS 1.2 needs to be improved."
"From an automation point of view, it should have better clarity and be more user friendly."
"It can be improved by including a feature that allows multiple file types to be selected simultaneously."
"Its UI is not very user-friendly and could be improved. For new users, it isn't easy."
"I observed that the Excel and Word validation was quite challenging, which is an area for improvement in the tool. I also experienced minor difficulties with Telerik Test Studio, particularly in fetching elements in some scenarios when using C# for coding."
"There are some compatibility issues with the load standpoint test."
"The charts need to be more detailed and customizable."
"Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation."
"The source controls that are in Tricentis Tosca have some problems. For example, if you use Selenium or use Java-based application, it's easy to match code from two developers. However, if you're a developer and going to look at Tricentis Tosca, it's very difficult to use the source control measure."
"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."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
"In Tosca, I see that there are no user guides."
"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."
"It can be quite expensive."
"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."
