Tricentis Tosca Reviews

The test automation function is independent of the technology used by the drag & drop functionality.

The project that I used this product on did not have a professional test management approach within the test activities they had for their IT systems. That's why they implemented automated testing with Tosca Testsuite, and the manual effort got reduced. At the same time, the replication of test processes was raised by up to 100%. This made the bug analysis for their software development much easier.

There's not much. The release cycles of the vendor are much faster than what companies can implement. Sometimes, out of the box functionalities are reduced to reduce the tools complexity, but then customers do miss some functionalities they had in the past.

I've used it for two years.

Not part of my job, but during the upgrade our IT departmend faced several issues in the installation process of the new version.

Similar issues within the execution of automated tests occurred, but they were solved within the configuration settings and/or with the help of the vendor.

No issues encountered.

Best I have ever seen.

Best I have ever seen.

Not as part of this project, but I used HP Quality Center as a test tool before. I found it much easier to learn as Tosca Testsuite has been devleoped for users with a very good and intuitive user interface.

The main installation was already done when I started. The setup of work areas, and multi-user workspaces is very easy and straightforward. Different options are described very well in the user manual.

Not sure, but I think the basic installation was done by a vendor team.

It's hard to calculate because there is no base available to compare with. However, test automation and management setup can be done very fast, and it has lower real costs when compared to doing a manual test execution for three or four times.

The department did an evaluation between HP Quality Center and TOSCA before my assignment started. The main reasons for choosing Tosca Testsuite was its easier usability as well as lower costs.

Check the efforts of your manual testing per application every year, and then decide on what, and how, to automate. Usually there should be an ROI at the latest, after using Tosca Testsuite for two years.

• Test case design
• Shows results in the requirements section
• Manual test cases
• Automation

Test automation – how you can record the module. It’s already easier to record than it was, but there is still room for improvement.

UI has gotten better but could still be improved.

There are some keyword shortcuts in test case design and in general that could be introduced. Sometimes everything is too big – it’s hard to describe.

I've used it for four years.

Not so far because we only started automating now. So far we have not tried to move the existing project to a new version- we just started.

With the license stability, we have had a lot of issues. There were many interruptions to the connection and took two-three weeks and have installed the license ourselves.

We just started – it should be ok.

Quite good – they were trying to solve the problem.

It was ok. I have seen better. They tried to find solutions quickly so that is a plus, and they always called back when there was an appointment or said they would call back.

No previous version was used.

Straightforward – only problem was with the license server.

We looked at Ranorex and Eggplant. We decided to go with Testsuite because you can integrate manual test cases and you can see the reports in a nice way and see how the test case is going in the requirement section.

Tosca has made the non-programming engineers job easy. The concept is unique but indeed the tool is very powerful in analyzing the functional aspects of both standalone and browser applications. I had a very wonderful experience with Tosca.

We have one application based on tax calculations and the transactions are calculated based on an Excel formula. We have developed implementations regarding how to implement or automate the application, but with Tosca the predefined modules from the TBOX engine and standard engine made our job to calculate the transactions easier.

Its unique way of test data maintenance re-usability of test cases is fantastic. Also, the support agents from the portal always respond to queries in less than 10 secs, which is very well appreciated!!

I am very happy using the product and also whenever I have asked for remote sessions, the agents always agreed.

I would request that they develop some modules on the classic engine.

I have been using it for more than a year now.

I have never encountered any deployment issues. Tosca is very intelligent in the way they handle the issues.

Tosca is efficient.

I would rate customer service 10/10.

Technical support is 10/10.

I am new to automation and Tosca is my first product.

Intitial setup is straightforward

A vendor team implemented it and they were 9/10.

We have achieved complete ROI.

We were advised to use QTP, but because we are new to programming, Tosca was the best for us to adopt.

We've found TBox to be valuable for scanning applications and automating test cases. In newest version, time of scanning the application has been reduced immensely. Also, there is a lot of ways to identify controls that doesn't have unique IDs, and that process is more stable than before.

TOSCA is quite organized by itself, so it helps us do our job more efficient and quicker.

The ability to create more complex TestCases with "If" and "While" loops (now it provides IF, DO and WHILE statements, but they can't really be implemented the way we are used to use those loops).

I've used the latest version for about three to four months, though TOSCA in general for more than a year-and-a-half.

N/A

Some issues with stability, but those are minor errors. Some errors happen without obvious reasons, or they're not obvious to me yet.

N/A

N/A

Generally, the support is good, but they give too many generic answers. Sometimes the problem is more direct and it requires deeper and longer thinking. That could be a bit improved.

Something in the middle. It's not really for somebody who is not passionate about testing. It's great for somebody who thinks about all the aspects of the TestCase.

Great tool for testing, but only when used by an educated tester or by somebody who's gone through the whole course and had at least a little bit of practice. It's worth it.

We are using it for end-to-end automation. The performance is good. It's just that it doesn't support applications on the Mac. But overall it is good.

Helps decrease execution time.

We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation.

Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability. It would be great if it were more stable.

It is scalable.

We do use it but it was better a year ago. Now, the turnaround time takes a little more time.

The upgrade I was involved in was complex. We had some issues with it.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are its technology and is it stable enough.

• Automation of regressive test cases
• Entering process and risk structures as basis for test design
• Entering logical test cases as basis for meaningful executable test cases
• Using the same test tool now as well for manual business testing

Improves the software quality in production by finding more defects with automated test sets, before transporting developments to production.

Reduces the effort for acceptance testing by business colleagues by

1. Reducing the effort for manual regressive tests and by
2. Providing better pre-tested software for business acceptance testing.

Reporting.

About 10 years.

Sometimes new features do not work as shown on slides, in the first release.

No.

Not now. In previous versions yes, for more than 10,000 test cases.

Nine out of 10, and now further improving.

Eight out of 10. Sometimes too (ITIL) process focused and too little content focused.

We used, and still use, our test tools depending on the test focus. But we switch to Tosca whenever respective functionalities are stable, usable in our tests.

Recent upgrade went smoothly. Upgrades have gotten better over time.

Upgrades are done in-house, new features are done with vendor.

We have used Tosca for a long time now. Recent new projects on Tosca have a ROI between one and two years. The cost driver is less the tool than the project effort.

Start with a test version.

Start with a pilot project, have Tricentis or a partner support the setup, pilots and extensions.

Tricentis is very good in communicating and sharing test best practices and often ahead in offering new trends in development and testing.

• Multiple scanning engines to automate many different applications.
• Powerful ability to generate different test data combinations from test instances.
• Logical workflow (from requirements through to execution and reporting).
• GUI is easy to learn.

In my case I was able to rapidly construct several automation suites for a government organisation, that greatly enhanced their ability to cover all key areas of functionality in an efficient manner. The main implementation of Tosca was used for regression testing a major upgrade to an insurance claims processing application. It worked very well for this purpose.

At the time I was using the product, the reporting function was lacking in usability and detail. Detailed reporting was generally done outside of Tosca.

Seven months.

Not really, it's generally very stable. There were some occasions early on when the application crashed. However, this was more related to the network environment than the application itself.

No. It is pretty easy to add other users, roles, and control access to different areas of the application. In my case we didn't upscale to a great degree but I know this is possible. Large organisations would take advantage of Tosca's utilisation of the common repository with robust check-in/check-out procedures to eliminate the risk of unintended changes.

Excellent. I was often able to access their chat support instantly and resolved the bulk of my inquiries very rapidly.

No, Tosca was my first automation experience.

It was very straightforward. I didn't do the initial setup. It was via a colleague. He had it up and running, along with a "happy path test" within a morning.

Not my area, but contact Tricentis for this.

No, I was not involved in the choosing of this solution.

Give it a go. Having since used Selenium to build an automation suite in another organisation, I feel Tosca has clear advantages in both the scope of applications that it can automate (web, mobile, windows, and more) as well as the intuitive GUI and powerful generation of test data combinations. Having not come from an IT background, I was able to get up and running with Tosca far quicker than with Selenium.

Valuable features include generating data including ECP, BVC and risk-based opportunities:

• If the data is vast, we may miss a few scenarios. To avoid this, the Tosca tool provides an inbuilt feature.
• Classifying tests into two types: Equivalence partitioning (+.-) and boundary value tests (inbuilt feature of Tosca).
• Risk-based opportunities are identified based on customer weightage for the modules (inbuilt feature of Tosca).

It has decreased the time for generating test data and risk-based opportunities which has helped us to cover key areas.

The Support TDD and BDD could be improved.

We have been using the product for a year, but we have been using HPE products for seven years.

We encountered a stability issue with Tosca, but it was rectified.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I would give technical support a rating of an eight out of 10.

We switched from Python for fast access of files.

The setup was straightforward.

The pricing of Tosca and HPE is high.

We evaluated SmartBear.

I prefer TDD with SpecFlow and Cucumber using a coded UI. These tools need to be integrated with Tosca to drive the TDD approach in automation.