Tricentis Tosca Reviews

We use Tricentis Tosca for Salesforce automation.

Tricentis Tosca has benefited our company by allowing us to onboard testers easily. We have a few developers who develop the code, such as scripts for the team. The manual testing team can execute the code without a problem. 

The regression testing time, was five days earlier. For example, in the current project, it took us five days for the release. Since we have used the solution it only takes us two days. It is a savings of three days. It's easy and much more stable. The results we receive are hard to believe. 

We have experienced that when we used Selenium, we can have some failures. Tricentis Tosca is much more reliable compared to many of the tools. The reliability and efficiency of our teams have improved a lot from the use of this solution.

The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca are the Salesforce scanning. There are two scanning for Salesforce applications. There is Salesforce scanning and normal application scanning. Object identification has been really useful in Tricentis Tosca.

The API testing has been useful. We can do testing in Postman and we receive good responses. We can import the Postman to Tricentis Tosca and start using it right away. The manual testing to automation can be done smoothly. You get the Postman sponsors from the manual testing team and we can import it to this solution.

There is a source code repository within Tricentis Tosca. There is no need to use GitHub or something else. We can do provisioning and all the switches in Tricentis Tosca. We use qTest as our direct test management tool, and it is integrated with this solution. Once installed it can easily be used and it is very easy to share the objects across the projects, such as if one developer scans all the pages we can share them across all the modules. The modules can be shareable as well. The reusability of some of the features is very good.

Overall the solution is easy to use compared to any other tools, it's very easy to organize and develop. It's simple for new people to have them be onboarded. There's not much coding involved, and the framework is stable.

Tricentis Tosca supports Salesforce Lightning which many other tools will not.

We are using the Tricentis Tosca BI testing module, analytics, and data testing and they have been great.

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.

If you have any issues with the tool, we had to go to the support system of Tricentis Tosca. We cannot change anything, such as the DLL files. We had to wait for them to deploy the package and it takes time. If I have some tool issue, it takes a month to resolve it, because normally the DLL comes, and then we have to recompile everything and then deploy it. It takes a lot of time. 

We use Copado as our CI/CD pipeline and Copado has no integration with Tricentis Tosca. Other solutions can support Copado, such as Jenkins or Areo. We are using a different approach to do the CI/CD operations.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately two years.

Tricentis Tosca is very stable if you compare it to Selenium or UFT.

The solution supports a lot of applications and it supports the leading applications. It can scale very well.

We have approximately 80 people using the solution in my organization. However, we are limited by the licensing cost but what we use of the solution we are using it to the maximum.

In Tricentis Tosca we cannot change anything. If we have some issues, we have to go through the support system and receive the support, but the support system is not that efficient. If you have a blocker from the tool side, it takes a long time for a solution. For example, if I'm a developer, we can use GitHub, Aleo, or any other tool for source control. 

We can check-in, check-out, deduct the files, review, and again do a review, such as pull a request. However, this is not available in Tricentis Tosca. We had to do reviews offline and we cannot give comments on this solution. For example, if I have a junior developer develop something, there is no way I can promote the code into the route directory. I have to do it all on a manual basis. There is no other review mechanism in the tool and neither does it support, integrate with GitHub or any other repository. We should have code within Tosca itself. There is no other way to take out the code.

The support from Tricentis Tosca needs to be improved. I have not been happy with their support. When I try and contact them I have found it difficult to get through to the first level of support. I then have to go through other communication channels for assistance.

I would rate the support from Tricentis Tosca a two out of five. 

If you use other solutions, such as Selenium or UFT, but we had issues in identifying objects. We did not have the same issue with Tricentis Tosca.

Tricentis helped with the implementation of Tosca. We are not using the cloud version because of security and compliance issues. It has been difficult. If it is in the cloud version, it is easy. If you're using the in-house on-premise version it's painful because we are supposed to do the deployment. Each build and deployment takes time, but if you use a cloud version, it is now seamlessly working.

We have a separate team to do the implementation, but it was easy for them. It took approximately two, to three weeks. Many things have to be done first inside, such as the DevOps and management, they need to first get the build. We compare, are we deploy it in our QA server, then we deployed the production server for their process. I am not sure of the exact breakdown of the deployment process time. The full process took a couple of months to set it up.

Initially, we used a consultant to do the implementation.

Tricentis Tosca has minimal maintenance, it is a setup-and-go type solution. The only thing we had to do is create the workspace. We use the two ways to do it, single-user workspace or multi-user space. We have now moved from single to multi-user. That takes some time to do because of the slicing and dicing of the workspace that we have to do. We have to be careful about the planning of Tricentis Tosca. 

The maintenance is straightforward. Once you install it, it's great. There is no need to have any updates everything is controlled to the centralized agent system. If we are to receive an upgrade, it's all handled through our IT team. They update all the systems, to whatever needs changing which is done through a backend system. There is no need to do individual updates.

Tricentis Tosca is an expensive tool and the licensing is not simple.

We have evaluated the Copado Robotic tool.

From experience from using UFT, if they just compare UFT to Tricentis Tosca, I think Tricentis Tosca is a great tool compared to any other tool I have experienced.

UFT is much more heavy compared to Tricentis Tosca which is lightweight and easy to learn and to work with. The stability of the Tricentis Tosca application is great. There is no scripting required in Tricentis Tosca as there is in UFT. However, there is more web scripting. You can do scripting separately and if you're going for a commercial tool Tricentis Tosca is the one to choose.

I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

There are two main use cases of Tosca. It is typically used for test automation, which is its main use case. Another use case is the test case design, which is around modeling an application from a business perspective. 

The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features. 

It is very expensive as compared to other tools that we have in the market. Its price is the main challenge because of which it is sometimes hard to sell Tosca because customers don't have that kind of budget.

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 is good for Tosca because they can say, "Hey, your license count is overrun. So, you get more licenses or buy more licenses," but from a customer's point of view, this is really bad because they don't know exactly what usage is happening against each business unit because they can't group them. That's a big problem. So, for each group, they have to clear different license servers in different VMs. That's definitely a key area of improvement and a major challenge I have faced. They could also provide short-term licenses, such as three-month or four-month consumption licenses.

In terms of the overall architecture, we need to have something light weighted rather than so heavy. If we have something light-weighted, it would definitely be easily adaptable for any customer. In terms of containerization, it is very hard to properly containerize Tosca. They can think around the architecture and simplify things, but to be fair to them, the product has grown organically, and it has always grown based on feature requests. Everybody has jumped in and provided feedback to them to develop new features every now and then. They always have had a busy pipeline, which I understand, but it has been a long need from a customer point of view to have a simplified architecture. They need to simplify their architecture, which they seem to be doing.

Reporting has been the biggest challenge for a long time. There are quite a lot of third-party products, but there is no proper integration. Based on what I remember when I last spoke to them, they are working on a cloud platform, and they want to re-platform everything. I'm guessing they are addressing these issues in that platform.

I've tried Vision AI that they have created, but it isn't there yet. They have oversold it. It looks promising, and in the next few years, hopefully, it will become very good.

Their support can also be improved.

I have been using this solution for almost eight years.

It seems stable. It has improved over the years. I've worked with it from version 9.1 to version 15. Based on what I've seen in the past, its performance is much better now.

It is scalable because there is no coding, but from an architecture and infrastructure perspective, it is very hard. So, scalability is a problem because the architecture is heavy.

Their support is okay. If you get the right people, then it is awesome because they will jump into a call and show you what needs to be done. They will help you, but getting that right person is a big challenge. 

When you log a ticket, you get a response, which is a very standard response, and they don't follow up with you. If someone is not following up, that ticket stays there for long. So, the problem is around the management of the people there. I have seen support from other companies as well, and Tricentis can improve from the support perspective.

It is simple. The only challenge is the high infrastructure cost associated with it. Sometimes people underestimate it. It's not a true SaaS solution. Based on the discussions I had, they were moving towards SaaS, and that's the future, but at this point, it's a very heavy solution that is dependent on the on-premise infrastructure, but the installation is easy. You can do it via GUI and you can do it unattended through the command line. So, installation-wise, I haven't faced many issues. They are more around the configurations and the actual infrastructure. 

We are one of the top partners of Tricentis, and we do the implementation. 

In terms of maintenance, Tosca is easier to maintain than other solutions such as Selenium and any open-source tool. The only challenge is the infrastructure cost. You have to have that infrastructure always up and running. If you are setting up this infrastructure on the cloud, utilization becomes a big challenge, specifically when you want to run multiple test cases on multiple machines. You have to set up all these agent machines, which is also a problem with UiPath. These are good tools, but they are not good in terms of future infrastructure cloud readiness. If I want to install things, there should be flexibility for ramping down and up based on the demand. This is something that none of these tools have at this point. Selenium probably has this because it is open-source, and you can create your own framework on top of it to add those features, but with Tosca and UiPath, because these technologies and features are controlled by the company, you can't add those features, and if you don't have those features, it becomes a big dependency and a problem.

Tosca is expensive. I don't see small and medium customers going for it. It's always large enterprises that have a big pocket. It is very expensive as compared to the other tools that we have in the market. They should reduce the price by half, and if they do that, they would do better business. From the competition perspective, other solutions are at a pretty similar level. UiPath is also very expensive. 

One thing that I always wanted was a short-term consumption license. With Tricentis, the biggest challenge is that you have to go for a minimum of one year license, and they also try to sell you a three-year license. It would be good if people can get a three-month or four-month consumption license. It should be on a monthly basis versus on a yearly basis. In today's world, the DevOps teams are decentralized, and the budget is decentralized. A project manager doesn't have a budget for the entire enterprise. He only has the budget for his project or for two or three testers. They need to deliver certain features with two or three testers. If they have to use Tricentis Tosca, it is very hard because Tricentis will force you to get a one-year license because, for them, recurring revenue is important. Even though they claim to be a continuous testing leader, in the real DevOps world, they have struggled to sell because of this factor. When the teams are small, they need flexibility, and if you don't give flexibility around license, it is very hard.

In terms of licensing, typically, we have concurrent users. You buy the license, and that license can be installed on a server and anybody can use it. If you use it, that license gets checked out by your name, and nobody else would be able to use it. It is based on concurrent users, rather than named users, which is good. 

Nowadays, everybody is trying to copy Tricentis Tosca because it is a leader in this space. It is the leader as per Gartner, Forrester, and PeerSpot. Every tool has its pros and cons. One particular product that I liked was Provar, which is specifically for Salesforce. They really went into the code to track any changes. Apart from that, open-source solutions are its biggest competitors. I've seen a lot of open-source frameworks that are better than Tosca and have the flexibility on the containerization side and the reporting side, but from the commercial tool perspective, Tosca is a leader in every aspect. I haven't seen any other tool that has a better capability than Tosca. The automation engine is pretty strong in Tosca.

If you have a manual testing background, it is much easier to adapt to Tosca, but if you're coming from a coding background, you will have to unlearn and think from a manual tester's perspective and work with Tosca. There is a learning curve. So, you need to go through that learning curve, and you should be ready for that. It isn't very complicated, but you definitely need to spend some time. You would need at least two to three months. Their training is not that great. It gives you a basic idea, but it doesn't give you project-related ideas. You really need to work on real-time projects to actually understand the value of the tool.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. There are certain things that they can improve. Apart from those, it is pretty good.

Tricentis Tosca is a tool used for system and application testing.

The advantage of using Tricentis Tosca is that we can get started with automation without much investment on solution development, with it following a keyword-driven approach. We have the actions and verifications readily available, so you can get started on the Tricentis Tosca conversion from the first day of training, and this is the advantage we have observed from the tool.

I also like that it is a simple tool, in terms of system testing, though there are other tools now that are good competitors for Tricentis Tosca, e.g. Katalon Studio.

A disadvantage of Tricentis Tosca is that you have to customize it according to your need, during the early stages of the software. Sometimes this happens when you're not on the system testing phase, but you're very close to development, e.g. more on the upstream testing, before system testing, unit testing, etc.

For example, you have to inject something as a precondition to the solution on the test, so you have to do some presetting, you have to write some code to it, and you have to make some conditions for upstream testing. Tricentis Tosca is not recommended in that stage, but it's definitely better for system testing, with it being keyword-driven and you have the keywords readily available, especially if you compare it with other tools such as Micro Focus and TestComplete.

Though I'm not currently working with Tricentis Tosca, e.g. I don't have a project utilizing the solution, I've had experience with it in the past year.

We evaluated Micro Focus, TestComplete, and Katalon Studio.

I am in the QA side, and I have almost 20 years of experience in QA. I'm doing all the automations. My experience with commercial tools are customer specific, e.g. if the customer wants to use a specific tool. I have experience on object-based tools and other types, on the commercial side. We use OneSource libraries and the custom frameworks, so that's where I have more experience, compared to commercial tools.

I don't have any current projects with Tricentis Tosca, but my company has a partnership with Tricentis. I'm not in the delivery team, e.g. I'm on the CoE team. Our application testing is more on digitally managing application drivers, so our scope on application testing is minimal. However, everyone's going digital nowadays, e.g. there's the remote setting and other things to come, so we utilize browser-based solutions, testing, mobile, etc.

I'm part of the CoE team where our work involves solutioning, initial designs, and choosing the right tools. We don't get into the product and use the same tool for a long time, in particular, we do a POC. With Tricentis Tosca, we have asked our teams to do a POC using it, because there is nothing more important than learning the tool, so that it can be easily understandable. Based on customer demand, we have done a few POCs for the tool, so our team isn't really involved in the full lifecycle of a project.

Katalon Studio is very similar to Tricentis Tosca, and price-wise, it's lower. This is why I don't compare Tricentis Tosca with TestComplete. I compare the tool with Katalon Studio, which is an open source robot that's similar to Tricentis Tosca, but because it's a free rule, you cannot have everything from it when compared to Tricentis Tosca.

My experience or my inputs on what to add to this solution, or what I'd like to see from it in the next release, would not be great, because our team is not into applications that much. Our scope of testing the applications is minimal. We are more into the panel-based devices and smart devices, e.g. POS (point of sale) or Point of Care devices in the medical field, or input devices, aeronautical flight attendance panels, etc. Those are the areas we are involved in, so they are purely embedded domains.

I'm giving Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten rating.

We were not able to automate the mainframe or maybe the backend test cases to other tools. That is why we switched to Tosca. Tosca can give us the UI plus the backend mainframe and API testing within one tool. That is why we need Tosca.

The mainframe testing and UI automation are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

Technical support is good.

The solution offers good tutorials. 

It's pretty easy to use.

The integration with mobile testing could be useful. Currently, they use this Perfecto Mobile as the mobile automation tool. If they could switch to others -such as BrowserStack or other tools - that would be helpful. I have used web UI, the desktop UI, and the API, as well as the mainframe. I haven't seen much from a mobile automation perspective as I haven't used it. I'm not aware if there is mobile automation. However, they really should have this if they don't already.

Scaling can be tedious.

From a scalability standpoint, if you are needing the data from Excel and Excel has lots of records, it may be difficult. I want to try for more records, basically between 5,000 and 10,000 rows reading from Excel. That is a bit of a tedious process. Right now, it doesn't seem very scalable if you want to read the data directly from Excel or any other file.

In Excel, you have to create the tables, rows, columns every time. Then, you have to read from Excel. You have to create a similar table structure in Tosca. It's a tedious process.

We have eight to ten automation engineers using the solution right now.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

Technical support is good. We get all the information through the call centers and they give us tutorials as well. It's not a problem there. We are satisfied with the level of support we get.

The setup was not done by me. It was done by a separate team. I wouldn't be able to discuss the setup. I installed it on my system, my PCs, and the client. That part was pretty straightforward.

I cannot recall the exact licensing terms of the price of the product.

I did do a proper comparative analysis of other solutions with regards to pricing. 

I did some certifications on Tosca. I tried to do some POCs as well. I'm using the latest version of the solution, which may be 3.2 or 3.5. 

I would advise new users to not go with writing the test cases manually. Try to start automating directly in Tosca, as that would help to save time. If you write manual test cases as well and then we try to automate to Tosca, it takes a lot of time. It's better to jump in right away with the automation-first mindset approach and start writing in Tosca so that you could use it in every execution cycle.

On top of that, if you have a different cycle for business users to do the testing or they are testing at the user acceptance testing, you can give them the test use for Tosca as well. It's pretty easy to use, straightforward and it would save time.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for automation testing. It integrates with other DevOps pipelines. 

The solution has improved out time to release on production. Everything's automated now, which makes everything move faster. 

The solution is model-based. I know and that's the main reason we went there. We are also using Tosca BI, which is the BI module. We're using that regularly for most of our teams. We just purchased it for our Business Intelligence. We ran a POC and then we just purchased it. 

The initial setup isn't too difficult. 

The solution does not have one catch-all product. For example, if you wanted the DB for Business Intelligence, it's a different module that you have to purchase. If you want to do API testing, you need to buy a different module. If you want to do performance testing, which we haven't bought yet, you would need to buy another module. There are a lot of modules you have to buy in order to have full-blown testing capabilities. I understand that they're breaking them up so people who don't want everything aren't forced into things they won't use. However, for those that do want all of the functionality, it can get costly. 

We've been using the solution for probably two to three years so far. 

The stability of the solution is good. It doesn't crash or freeze. there aren't bugs or glitches. 

The solution can scale quite well. We have 16 groups using it. I don't know how many individuals are on it, however, it's likely there are five people per team. We usually don't go by user when we're counting.

We do plan to increase usage in the future. We use it quite extensively already. We may be moving some legacy tools over to it. 

Technical support has been good. We are satisfied with the level of support on offer. 

We used IBM Rational or Functional Tester and it was just outdated and we needed to go down the toolset. We also wanted something that we use as a data model. 

The initial wasn't complex, it was pretty easy, however, when we did the upgrade to the latest version, which is the new way of architecting, that was more of a challenge due to the fact that we're in multiple clouds. That was more of an issue for us to upgrade due to our multiple cloud environment.

We had to work with Tosca quite a bit to get that one done. Of course, there aren't too many folks who are doing what we're doing, so that might be part of it.

The deployment took a quarter of a year. We tried to install it in our environment and that's got a lot of rules in it, and therefore it took a while. For us, the security and architecture had to be approved before we put anything into our complex environment. It also took a while to train people up on it. 

We have three staff members that handle maintenance aspects, however, they also work on different tools as well. They are not full-time on just Tosca.

We hired some consulting hours from Tosca to help us with the tech. We ran a POC, which they helped us with. Then we did have some consulting hours - maybe 30 or so. We also had them train us. It was good.

They also have self-service training. They recommend you take the self-service training before you start working with the consultants. That way you know more, and then it doesn't take as much time with the consultants. 

While our teams are seeing a great benefit, I wouldn't say we see a return on investment. ROI can be subjective.

The solution is expensive. You can do multi-year or you can do yearly in terms of a licensing agreement. You can do whatever you want.

While it's a pricey solution, it's probably more stable and has more capabilities than some of the other solutions out there.

The only other cost, aside from choosing the modules you need, is the server costs as you need to put it somewhere. 

We did look at other options before choosing Tosca, however, I cannot recall which. It was a few years ago now. We did use Gartner to help narrow down our options. 

We are end-users and customers. 

We are using the latest version of the solution, although I can't speak t the exact version number. 

We have the solution on the AWS and Azure clouds and we also have it on-premises. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's stable and it works, however, the cost is high. You also need a high level of knowledge in order to use it. You can't just pull someone off the street and make them a user. There's a definite learning curve. 

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.

Tosca has been used for automated testing with our business process management tool, known as Athium, as well as our GRC tool, Archer.

It assists us in putting together automated testing for those two platforms in order to manage test coverage and do it in an automated manner as opposed to how it was done manually.

The most valuable aspect of using Tosca is that its user interfaces are intuitive. 

With the resources, we can quickly learn the product. You can quickly build automated testing, manage it, and have it run on a regular basis to ensure that there are no issues. It gave us a greater level of confidence when we were carrying out those tasks.

Some of those testing with other code-based setting frameworks found it to be much more fragile. As a result, managing and updating were much more difficult than with Tosca.

In terms of tool limitations, there is not a lot that the vendor would need to develop at this time. I believe that the Tosca tool's setup capabilities, as well as functionaries, could easily assist us in a very nice way with our automated testing effort.

There are some things that we would need to do on an organizational level. We did not implement the process of our primary automated testing tool. The IT teams are still relying on the coding framework, which is either Ruby cucumber or Java cucumber, to complete a large portion of the automated testing.

We would have to delegate a large portion of that work to Tosca, which would rely heavily on training the existing automated testing team. Also, we would have to obtain a license for the product and ensure that all of them are operational.

While the initial setup was straightforward, we required assistance with the configuration to ensure that everything was done correctly.

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca for a year and a half.

The product is extremely stable and provides excellent value. 

We no longer have to manage the stability, and we no longer have to perform tests manually.

It gives us a much better idea of what kind of test coverage we have, as well as whether or not the system will be stable with automated testing in place.

The stability has been great.

I would give them a nine out of ten for their assistance. They were responsive, as well as assisting us to be fully enabled as soon as possible.

Our teams use qTest for a lot of test management and test planning, and some of the IT teams use qTest heavily, whereas a couple of the application teams, use Tosca.

The initial setup was simple, but there were a few areas where we needed to consult with the support team.

The support team was extremely helpful in assisting us in configuring the system correctly as well as providing and sharing some best practices for setup and configurations.

They are probably more expensive than other comparable tools, but you also get the full suite of testing tools. 

It has a wide range of capabilities. And, even though you pay probably twice as much, you get a lot more for your money.

If the teams are implementing and they are doing agile development and want to stay on track with their agile deliveries, the automated testing goes hand in hand. Tosca can be an excellent enabler for you to be able to do the testing at a much faster pace than if you were trying to do that with other manual testing and that does not slow you down.

It works very well if the organization is trying to move toward a more agile approach, and the ability to do automated testing lends itself very well to it.

I would rate Tricentis Tosca a nine out of ten. It's pretty good.

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.