Tricentis Tosca Reviews

Tosca is a model based component tool and also quite flexible in terms of the customization required for most of the applications, if objects are not recognized. It allows manual testers to pick up automation, because it is a scriptless tool. Reporting is well managed within Tosca and there is no requirement to build a framework around it.

We are only using Tosca for our test automation. It helps the business testers to get involved and be a part of automation. It helps us define the right coverage by defining the scope in the test case design section. This tool has test data management capability along with test management.

• Objects re-scanning (recognizing the objects again)
• Providing features to highlight the objects
• The user guide/help document needs to be improved for better understanding of the tool and its features.
• ScratchBook execution needs to be improved as Tosca crashes multiple times.

I have been using Tosca for the past two years.

If the Tosca repository becomes huge in size, then you might face performance issues. Tosca crashes many times and the best practice is to keep saving your work frequently to avoid re-work.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support is available via chat or by raising an incident. They are often able to resolve minor issues. It takes really long to resolve major issues and we have to wait for them.

I have been working on different test automation tools and I was introduced to Tosca because of the technology that it supported for our applications. The current test automation tool was unable to provide a solution for our .NET Windows-based application, which Tosca provided out-of-the-box.

The initial setup was not very complex. The Tricentis team provided support in terms of setting up the project and assisting during the initial days to get us used to the tool.

It is an expensive tool compared to other test automation tools. It has a lot of advantages over other tools. They provide different types of licensing like cloud, Node locked, and floating licenses.

We did Proof of Concept with other automation tools, such as UFT and TestPartner, but we found Tosca to be a better tool.

I would definitely recommend this tool. It is user friendly, once you get used to it, and it is easy to implement. You might have to struggle initially to understand Tosca and its approach.

Our whole team that is working on Tricentis Tosca has done training to receive certifications in automation engineering and test design.

Tricentis Tosca can be used for software testing with automation.

The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions.

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.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca within the last 12 months.

The technical support of Tricentis Tosca is good. They have been helpful and resolved our problem.

The installation was straightforward.

I have evaluated other solutions.

I would recommend this solution to others. It has the capability of doing many types of tests.

I rate Tricentis Tosca a seven out of ten.

While we started implementation with a focus on testing automation, the Risk Management feature is one we are seeing as very valuable in our environment, allowing us to better focus on critical testing.

It has allowed us to have a highly reusable Regression Test suite. We have already been able to run it for an SAP upgrade and plan on using it on a regular basis (weekly) going forward.

The record and play is still a new feature and while SAP has been added to the latest version, it is still lacking usefulness for common repository setups.

We've been using it for about 8 months

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

We've had no issues with scalability.

We have had great customer service so far. Support has been responsive and helpful.

Technical support has been pretty responsive so far. They have provided solutions to most of our challenges and provide work arounds when no solutions were available.

The tool is very different than other testing tools and it is important to explain some of these different to all the stakeholders to ensure they really understand the benefits at their level.

By that I mean that a tester might see benefit in the ease of automation but a business user will see benefit in the risk coverage visualization, for example.

• Test case design: Integrated test data management in the tool itself
• Web services automation: Easier API testing
• DevOps: Testing starts as soon as development gets completed
• Service Virtualization: Early automation

It is quick and easy to maintain automation with Agile implementation.

I would like to see defect raising and tracking.

I've used it for almost a year.

There were sometimes issues with stability.

There were sometimes issues with scalability.

Technical support is very good.

We switched as there is no scripting required. The framework is inbuilt, hence maintenance is easier.

The setup was straightforward.

Licenses are expensive, but they are worth using.

Go for the product if you are looking for faster automation.

The scanner helps us to define many tests with one scan.

Tests written once can be reused across different projects

I would like to see the availability of more libraries

We have you used this solution for two years.

I did not encounter any issues with stability.

I did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I would rate the level of technical support as average.

We used Soap UI and Selenium (Open source tools). We switched to Tosca because the organization decided to make the switch.

I taught myself how to do the set up, so it was OK.

There are many products on the market. Providing more libraries for the price will be an option that could help.

We evaluated other options before choosing this solution.

It is a good product, with online tutorials, knowledge base, etc.

I liked the "no required scripting" part as most of the people in my team are not skilled QAs and half of the team reside offshore, thus it suited to most of our requirements.

We ended up going back to Selenium as this tool was very slow with the web applications. Also, for any new functionality, it requires customization that in turn required training with no guarantee that it may work with future releases.

They have to create some discussion forum, we cannot always rely on some expert to respond to the queries. Also, everything requires additional costs. They need to have better documentation, forums, and support.

I have used it in one of my smaller projects so as to evaluate if we can use it as an alternative to our Selenium Keyword Driven Framework. I have used it only for two weeks with the 14-day free trial.

The level of technical support is average. I reported that the web application response was very slow and I never really got a real solution. Instead, I sent out too many emails just to explain to them what the problem was.

We have used Selenium WebDriver and still are using the same solution.