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

SmartBear TestComplete vs TestingWhiz vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 4.9%, down from 5.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TestingWhiz is 0.2%, down from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 18.9%, up from 17.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.
VS
Low code features and good customization but needs more customer-requested features
We utilized the solution to showcase our capabilities to customers or clients, and demonstrate how it can save money and achieve a return on investment through automation The organization was able to provide customers with business solutions by giving demos of various tools, assisting in securing…
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

"It works very fine. It is fast on almost any machine, and it is also very well organized. I like its object mapping and its capability to find and interact with almost everything that exists on Windows."
"The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing."
"When compared to other tools, it is very simple."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools."
"SmartBear TestComplete performs some self-healing and has a feature called OCR (optical character recognition)."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"It's cross platform automation capabilities specially ranging across web, UNIX (via putty), and other systems."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"TestingWhiz is a low code, no code tool with integration facilities, such as with Jira, and can be used over the cloud."
"This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated."
"It's stable and reliable."
"We can also create customized functions. For example, if something isn't supported in Tricentis Tosca Commander, we can create our own function to integrate it with Tosca Commander, so we can utilize it and integrate with the macros."
"For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing."
"The tool can be handled without any knowledge in parameterisation, especially the TestCaseDesign which makes the tool mighty and stable."
"The initial setup isn't too difficult."
"Image recognition: It has allowed us to automate a GUI section of our product which involves drawing different topologies."
"The reporting is really nice."
 

Cons

"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"Right now, the product only supports Windows."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available."
"Their license management should be improved. One of our customers is a global customer. They want to use one licensed server and then split the licenses based on the different users of the different business units, but currently, there is only one license server that everybody can access. There is no control, and that's why sometimes congestion can happen."
"It needs better integration with JIRA."
"Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability."
"Tricentis Tosca's performance could be better. Sometimes when we are remapping or when it is loading it can take a lot of time. There are free solutions that have better performance in this area."
"They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies."
"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."
"There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases."
"It can be quite expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team."
"The option we chose was around $2,000 USD."
"It costs a few hundred per year, but I am not sure. It is not at all expensive as compared to other tools."
"The product is becoming more and more expensive."
"TestComplete now have come up with three modules (Web, Desktop & Mobile), so based on the type of product for automation, it is adequate to purchase the required module."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"Our ROI is about $10,000 a year."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
Information not available
"The tool's pricing is lower than that of other automation tools."
"A yearly license costs around 20,000 euros."
"There are two licenses: single user and multiple user. A multiple-user license means that several people can work together on one project and collaborate on code stored in a central location. A single-user license is for people working alone on a one particular application. It's much cheaper than a multi-user workspace. If you are getting a large volume of licenses for an enterprise, you can probably negotiate a discount, but I'm not sure about that."
"We have around 200 [concurrent] licenses and the cost around $1.4 million a year."
"Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked."
"There are different types of licenses: enterprise or professional. The cost varies."
"Pricing could be better."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is on the higher side."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
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
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to imp...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TestingWhiz?
It is cheaper compared to other tools. The tool is web-based with various licenses, including professional and enterp...
What needs improvement with TestingWhiz?
Some features need to be implemented based on customer customization requests, which are currently not available. Add...
What is your primary use case for TestingWhiz?
We utilized the solution to showcase our capabilities to customers or clients, and demonstrate how it can save money ...
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...
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...
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

No data available
No data available
Orchestrated Service Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Verizon, IBM, Symantec, VMware, Hyundai, Choice Hotels, Intel, Autodesk, Frost
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, OpenText, UiPath and others in Functional Testing Tools. Updated: August 2025.
865,164 professionals have used our research since 2012.