Tricentis Tosca Reviews

We are primarily using this product as an automation tool, for regression, and as a revision tool. 

Using the automation tool, I can transfer test cases that are being done manually to ones that are automated. After about 30 such instances, I use the regression system from the suite to create all possible combinations of test cases to try with the new version. This gives us an overview of how the software is performing. Also, when major updates take place, we re-run all of the regression tests to make sure that it still conforms to the requirements.

The automation testing functionality is very powerful.

This tool is very easy to use and I think that anyone can come in, having no experience with it, and within four to six months be comfortable with it.

The graphical interface means that you don't have to write any code.

The interface is very organized. You can find folders and settings for everything that you need, and you can easily connect things together.  

I would like to see better integration with other testing tools. There is full integration with Selenium and having this with other tools would be good.

Integration with other programming languages would also be helpful.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for the past three years.

I have not really found many problems or bugs when using this product, so stability has not been an issue.

Tricentis Tosca is very scalable. You can easily move from a small test suite to a larger test suit, which I think is pretty good. We about 100 users in the organization.

I have not been in touch with technical support from the vendor.

I also have experience with Selenium HQ, Katalon Studio, and Ranorex.

Our organization is broken into separate sections and there is a team for installation and configuration that handled the deployment. As I am not part of that team, I am unable to judge the complexity of the setup.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to make use of the extensive library that they have. It is a good collection of training videos and documentation, and I would advise everybody to go through these materials. They are really helpful and it will allow them to learn much faster, bringing them to the point where they can use it to its full potential.

In summary, I am really comfortable with this tool, I haven't had many problems, and it's sufficient for our work. In the three years that I have been working with it, whenever I've needed something, I've been able to find it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for testing. The company's businesses are tax-free payments. We're testing the company applications around the aspects of its tax-free payment systems.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the extremely fast setup. You can really get up and running within a very small window of time. It's great.

We like the fact that it works across mobile, desktop, web, and APIs. Due to this, the solution has a broad range of applications.

The solution needs to improve its simulation of mobile environments. Right now, that aspect is really lacking.

The solution should work to try to lessen the cost of the solution. Right now, using it is costly for companies such as ours.

We'd like to see improvement in shared repositories. The problem with the shared repository is this: as it gets bigger, as we create more test cases, and due to this, we are experiencing issues.

I've been dealing with the solution for just over a year.

The stability of the solution is excellent. It's very reliable. We don't seem to have issues with bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good.

The scalability of the solution is very good. We can expand it if we need to The solution doesn't give us any problems in that sense.

The technical support of the solution is very good. We've very satisfied with the level of service provided to us.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was not complex at all. It took us less than a month to have something up and running. It was very easy, and one of the solution's big selling points for our organization.

We're simply customers of Tosca. We don't have any professional relationship with the company.

The pricing of the solution is quite expensive. It's definitely not one of the cheapest options. It's very pricey.

On top of the already expensive pricing, there are add-ons that help with the basic test suite, and you have to pay more for those.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I'd recommend people do a proof of concept (POC) around Tosca and compare it to other available tools. That way, an organization will know if the solution is right for them without investing too much time into everything.

Tricentis Tosca is used to test our in-house products. We have developers for Google and other web applications for our internal use, but that product is developed by outsourced developers, that needs to be tested.

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.

We only use the UI for testing purposes, so all other features are unusable to us.

The document object model or some aspects of it has a bit of a learning curve.

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca for one year.

We use the latest version.

I don't have any issues with the stability of Tricentis Tosca.

Because my organization or team only has one or two testers, we don't need to think about scalability. As a result, that product does not need to be scalable in my environment.

My experience with the Tricentis website support was good.

I have experience with Selenium HQ and Parasoft.

We conducted a SOAtest using Parasoft. Tricentis Tosca is different and better, because it has a reusable model, whereas the others do not.

The initial setup requires some learning time. In my experience, we have testers who have no development experience, so we need to educate them on the development side. I'm referring to the ID in the document object model or some aspects of it. After that, we'll be able to use it. In my experience, the learning curve was the most difficult obstacle.

It took approximately three months to complete the deployment.

This solution is maintained by two people, the same two who use it.

I was able to learn the installation process myself.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others, but in our country, I believe the importance of testing is currently ignored or underestimated. It is not popular in our country at this moment but I will recommend this tool.

We are partners with Tricentis.

I would rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

Automating SAP and NON SAP applications 

Reduced Integration testing time effectively from 2 weeks to 1 day for CRM application.

With code free automation concept, it's easy to automate and maintain test scripts. Many of my team members shifted over the past two years, and upskilling and knowledge transition was never a problem. 

In today's agile and cloud world when solution and functionality are not stable, automation scripts' maintenance was not a big issue. Looking at the amount of rework and maintenance activity that we had done for our scripts, it might have been a nightmare with some other scripting tool.

They can make it more stable. I have used this tool for SAP applications. Tricentis's alliance with SAP mostly worked fine, but there were very few glitches. However, we got the required support from the Tricentis team.

They are coming up with their new versions and upgrades with respect to how the Tricentis systems as cloud applications are updated, and it would be good if they have a robust accelerator pack.

I have used this solution for more than one and a half years.

I scaled it up a few months ago, and it was not a smooth process.

I have worked on QTP/UFT and  SAP TAO for SAP automation. Considering no-code automation, easy maintenance, and integration capabilities with 150 + applications, I selected TOSCA for an automation solution.

Its initial setup is not very complex and needs the required skills/knowledge. It also depends on the environment. It is good to have a TOSCA expert in your team to support integration activities.

We engaged the SI partner for Tosca set up and automation.

We did not fully utilize its integration with the test management tool, but it was working fine. 

My recommendation would be to go through Tricentis documentation and the best practices that they are proposing. Wherever required, set up a knowledge-sharing session with Tricentis. 

We use this product for testing and trying to make solutions work.

This product contains a lot of functionality.

It can provide all levels of testing from design to execution to reporting. I like it because everything is available in one place.

When people start using this product, there is a learning curve. For people who were using another product, whether an open-source one like TestComplete or a commercial product, they are unable to use this solution immediately because it is much different. You need to spend much more time learning the tool and how to use it, compared to others.

When they developed the tool, they created their own rules and you need training for the people who will be using it.

We have been using Tricentis Tosca for about six months.

I would say it's a stable solution.

I have not used to to the point where I needed to scale it.

Our entire team is using it, which is more than five people.

I have been in contact with technical support and they have been very responsive. I can't complain.

I have also been using TestComplete. It is a simpler product to use and I was learning through using it. I didn't have to do any training. There were points where I needed to check the documentation concerning limitations

The initial setup was very straightforward. I did not find it to be complex and I don't remember having any problems. There was nothing spectacular about it.

Overall, the product works fine. With respect to errors in the product, there is nothing in particular that comes to mind. If there were issues then I was always able to work my way around them.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use Tricentis Tosca mostly for API endpoints. We are testing the integration with systems.

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.

I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users. They are not obviously present.

The user interface test can have a high propensity to fail. These fails are because when doing changes there are shifts in the screen, that Tosca cannot see right away, I'm not sure if there's a solution to that problem, but I've noticed it. For example, when something on the screen moves, such as you add a button, it moves somewhere else, and then Tosca can't see it, then it breaks. It's fine, you go in and fix it, but I don't know if there's a solution to this problem.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

We have approximately 100 people using this solution in my company.

The technical support is great. I have not reached out to the support often but when I have they have been very responsive and helpful.

The academy on user interface and the API introduction I found very useful. It has helped me understand some of the features available.

I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

We use Tricentis Tosca for testing.

The user management could improve in Tricentis Tosca because it is confusing. It would be better to have it in one place. Having to add it to the cloud and to a specific project can be a mess. 

In the future, they could improve overall mobile functionality.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable. However, we had a situation with an application we wanted to test some reset passwords. We have the two-factor authentication enabled on sending an SMS to a number and in this case, we did not find anything to solve it. There was not anything to automate me getting the number, and proceed with it automatically without going and testing it manually.

The technical support is good, we were satisfied.

I have previously used Selenium in the company I used to work for and it was perfect. The solution was very good at testing web applications, but not Windows, or desktop applications. Tricentis Tosca does not have customized reporting tools ready but Selenium you can build and customize whatever you want.

Tricentis Tosca is an expensive solution and there is an annual license required. The whole licensing process is confusing and it could be made easier.

My advice is if companies have developers, or the potential to teach developers, or QA teams, I would suggest they use Selenium because the price of Tricentis Tosca is expensive.

I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

Tosca can work with a wide range of technological solutions. So Tosca is not just a replacement for open-source products. It's integrated with different technologies, desktop applications, package solutions like SAP, and mobile applications.

Right now, I can't think of any areas where Tosca can improve because we are not yet that experienced with delivering services based on Tosca.

I've been using Tosca for nearly three years.

We haven't implemented Tosca at a large enough scale to really comment on that. 

We haven't had any major problems with the product, but when we've had issues, Tricentis support has been generally responsive.

The implementation process is manageable and easy enough. It's an example of a good implementation approach.

Primarily I'm dealing with customers looking for a cheap solution, and they are willing to try open-source automation solutions. So from this perspective, the price of Tosca is not as competitive. And these alternatives are on the radar of larger companies that are investing in the delivery of their products. So Tosca is not penetrating the market as much because of the license prices.

I would rate Tosca eight out of 10. The only disadvantage is the high price. Still, I would say it's worth trying because the barrier is low to implement automation, and it works with a broad scope of technologies and applications.