Tricentis Tosca Reviews

My primary use case for Tricentis Tosca is SAP testing.

I'm using Tricentis Tosca as part of test automation, so it reduces the test execution time, and this has improved our organization. This is the main advantage of the tool, compared to doing it manually.

All the features available now in Tricentis Tosca are valuable.

One thing to improve in Tricentis Tosca is that it's not compatible with Excel based forms. Another area for improvement is that the tool is not compatible with OpenText applications. OpenText is a company which provides multiple applications.

There's also an issue with the support for Tricentis Tosca. If they don't provide support within a faster timeframe, then you will wait for the solution, and you'll lose, e.g. whatever you're gaining from the tool, you'll lose, because of the delayed support.

Tricentis Tosca also needs some improvement, and this is why my rating for it is only eight out of ten, e.g. it needs to have more compatibility to be able to take advantage of its multiple features.

The tool also supports on-premises deployment only, and it needs to elevate to cloud deployment. It should be easily accessible by anyone, and this is currently not the case. Other competitor tools, or most of the competitor tools, have moved to cloud, except Tricentis Tosca.

The licensing cost for the tool also needs improvement.

If these changes were to be made, then I could give Tricentis Tosca the perfect score: 10 out of 10.

I've been using Tricentis Tosca for six years.

The stability and reliability of Tricentis Tosca is just 60% for me.

We were able to contact technical support for Tricentis Tosca, and they gave us a delayed response. In order to get our problem solved, we had to wait for one month.

The initial setup for Tricentis Tosca was a mix of both straightforward and complex. If you are using just one component, the setup was straightforward, if you wanted to integrate the tool with the multiple components, then the setup becomes complex.

The installation was standard in terms of how long it took to complete, e.g. one week. If there was integration, it could be completed in three weeks.

I've seen a return on investment from the tool, but only when it was used long term, e.g. in more than three years time.

The licensing cost for Tricentis Tosca is expensive. It has multiple features, but to use all of its features you have to pay for additional licenses.

Tricentis Tosca is a testing tool, so we can implement it in any software projects.

The tool is only applicable for on-premises deployment. Currently, it's not possible to deploy it via public or private cloud.

I'm using version 15 of Tricentis Tosca.

I did the deployment of the tool myself, and didn't use an integrator, reseller, or consultant. One person can deploy Tricentis Tosca.

We have 1000+ people in our environment who are using the tool.

Product-wise, I'm rating Tricentis Tosca eight out of ten. Service or support-wise, my rating for it is six out of ten.

We use Tricentis Tosca for end-to-end automation. We have various types of applications that we have to automate. For example, we automate Salesforce, SAP, web-based applications, desktops, mainframes, APIs, and database automation.

We use Tricentis Tosca on-premise and in a private cloud.

Tricentis Tosca has helped organizations process tasks faster and more efficiently.

The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is it is a completely scriptless automation tool, which I liked a lot. They keep on continuously improving their tools, wherever we are facing any challenges they are able to provide a solution for it. It is easy to learn, everyone can easily read and understand what is happening with the scripts. Any business user or function tester can use the tool efficiently. This is a complete solution package.

Tricentis Tosca could improve on its mobile automation solution.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately six years.

The performance of Tricentis Tosca is very good. They have a feature called model-based test automation, which is highly stable and they are improving the solution in very efficient ways. For example, if there is a complete change in the use of the application, such as it was initially implemented in SAP and later on moved into a Java-based application, we can simply utilize the same models. Tricentis Tosca is completely model-based which is very robust.

Tricentis Tosca, it is very scalable. We are using it for end-to-end automation where we are working on completely different types of applications across different technologies. Tricentis Tosca supports more than 160 technologies as of  2018. It supports the majority of the applications generally available outside. You can directly start automating those applications and tools. It is can be easily scaled. We can execute test cases and we are able to automate very well. We are receiving more than 90 percent of coverage with the out-of-the-box Tricentis Tosca.

We have more than 100 users who are utilizing this particular tool. We worked with customers where there are more than 200 licenses, which have started using it. There are different types of licenses and the users are different. We started using this tool for various projects in our application where there are data developers and automation testers. The client started utilizing those test cases for execution.

Tricentis Tosca is the leading solution in the market. They have some competition, such as Selenium and Worksoft Certify. However, I do not find Selenium to be much of a competitor to Tricentis Tosca. Tricentis are investors in Selenium. The Tricentis team's main focus is not on their test applications but focuses on end-to-end automation. It is trying to convey itself as a complete package of test automation where it can perform functional testing automation from a single tool. We see Tricentis Tosca as a complete package solution.

The technical support of Tricentis Tosca is very good. There was a dedicated team of people who were available in the chat window, where we can directly chat within 24 hours a day seven days a week. However, that is if we purchased their dedicated support for them. If not, we have a community of people who are implementing Tricentis Tosca, and there are plenty of practitioners who are part of this community. They always provide the solutions for whatever issue that anyone would be facing.

I have used many other solutions, such as Selenium and Worksoft Certify.

We used to use WorkSoft Certify as a solution, then we moved to Tricentis Tosca recently. The reason we switched was the slowness of the automation scripts and some of the areas, such as a drag and drop issue we had where we cannot drag and drop in WorkSoft Certify. We were able to do this with other automation tools. Our teams started switching to Tricentis Tosca rapidly because the exhibition time is a lot faster and more efficient compared to other automation tools. They can directly jump into automation.

Another major reason why the customers are switching to Tricentis Tosca is that the customer can read and understand what is happening in the script, which is not the case with other automation tools, such as Selenium. You need a developer or automation tester to explain what is happening in the script, and you need to provide some comments or explanations. Whatever automation was done in Tricentis Tosca, the customer themselves can read and understand what is happening in the script. This was a good selling point.

We preparing to do the implementation of Tricentis Tosca we talk to the customers on the different areas for their requirements. We have a lengthy call with them, to be frank, in their specifications are. We have a demo of the tool, that we discuss with the customer about their problems. We find out what are the different applications that they have. We do a mock POC on their applications and we do some tests to understand whether the solution is going to fit their requirement or not. 

We look to see if they have any customization requirements or room for customization in their applications. They might require specific customized solutions. Unlike tools, such as Worksoft Certify where we have to go to the vendor to receive custom solutions, we can write our own custom controls in Tricentis Tosca. Where customers are having the knowledge, we can create our own custom solutions. More than 90 percent of it doesn't require any custom solutions because it presents itself to provide patches if they come across any issues or challenges. It's a single solution for most of the customers.

Once the installation is ready in approximately a week's time, we can start with the automation. There is no framework or anything needed for this project tool to start with automation. We only need to ensure that we implemented the best practices in the initial days, and we follow the same practices continually.

The maintenance of the scripts is one of the major challenges in any automation tool, such as Tricentis Tosca. The maintenance is very fast and more efficient in the Tricentis Tosca automation tool. There is a coding language called Tosca coding language, we can search for multiple objects where there is a change. We can update thousands of objects with a single click. Within a single second, we can update thousands of test cases. This is a very useful feature that has been helpful. Dividing the technical properties of the objects and on the logical section where we are working on the objects into different areas. It makes it very easy and efficient to automate or maintain the test cases.

There were instances where it used to take a massive amount of time for performing the automation using a certain specific scenario. If a normal tester tries to open the file itself, it takes approximately eight minutes. Later on, we have to go and verify each and every value in that particular Excel and cells, which typically can take two to three weeks of time. 

Using automation in Tricentis Tosca, it can be done in a single system in less than 10 minutes, the whole process. This is a substantial ROI for the customers because they were saving a lot of time. Normally for the opening of Excel itself, it takes 10 minutes. I understand the different things that can be done there has been a lot of saving that the customer has voiced. They appreciated the solution and they are utilizing Tricentis Tosca for everything they need automation for, such as EPAs.

We have a license to use Tricentis Tosca on-premise and in the cloud.

The pricing and licensing of Tricentis Tosca were alright. Many customers look for end-to-end enterprise solutions, there were not many challenges with the pricing. However, the customers who are coming from Selenium or similar, feel they're paying a premium for this Tricentis Tosca license. If the right person is there for the implementation of the Tricentis Tosca, then it is one of the best tools in the market.

There are other solutions available in Tricentis Tosca. For example, there is NeoLoad, OSV Orchestrated Service Virtualization, Tosca DI, Tosca Data Integrity, and Flood IO. Additionally, there is a qTest integration that is available and the LiveCompare solution, which was acquired by Tricentis for live compare implementation. These additional services or tools requires some specific customers license. If the customer wants to use them it's a separate license. These addons are not always part of the client's requirements and do not need to be purchased. They can directly start with only a Tricentis Tosca license.

I have evaluated other tools.

The major challenges that we face with any automation tool are with respect to whenever there are any modifications. For example, when we are working on a tool, such as Selenium or something which is a script-based automation tool. Whenever there are any changes that have to be done, instead of modifying the existing scripts, we normally tend to recreate the script because it takes less time to create a new script rather than updating the existing script, which might be developed by someone else. To understand where the test case is getting failed. However, this is not an issue in Tricentis Tosca where the major issue of maintenance of the scripts is very easy because we have a Tricentis Tosca coding language where you can update your multiple test cases simultaneously.

There were instances in my past experience where the customers informed us that Tricentis Tosca was not good. They said they were not going to implement it again. One of the most important things to know about the tool is how it works. For example, if we are having a knife, we need to know how to use it. If we don't use it properly, there will be some consequences. However, if you know how to use the knife it can be extremely useful for man things.

For any tool to work more efficiently and properly, we need to know how to use it properly. They are providing the certifications and the solutions for free for anyone who wants to learn and implement it. Normally I recommend people to learn Tricentis Tosca and then start implementing it, rather than jumping into automation, using this tool.

I rate Tricentis Tosca a nine out of ten.

I like Tricentis Tosca a lot compared to other automation tools that I've worked on. That's why I recommended Tricentis Tosca. If I have to choose any tool for automation to automate a specific application, I would choose Tricentis Tosca before other automation tools.

We are using the solution on cloud. We have the updated version. Each time a new version is released, we already have it. I'm not sure what version we're on right now.

We have teams of around 5 to 10 people for different projects that are using this tool.

It's been very helpful to have connectivity with mobile. The tool also identifies some of the actual changes from the recordings on the actual testing suite. That is something that I really like.

The technology stack that they have now is bigger than when it started. That gives us more flexibility on aligning to one single tool to get automation from different technologies in one test scenario. Instead of dividing them and splitting them into different parts, we can go from end to end with this tool.

I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step.

I have been using Tricentis for a couple of years.

Technical support is fine. We get a very quick response from them.

We have this as a service, so the initial setup is not that complex. It's already there, and we can plug in and start doing our automation. But last year, we started with a project from scratch, and we needed some support from Tricentis itself. It wasn't complex, but it required some time to get the tool to the point where we could start using it. It took about four weeks.

There is an annual cost for Tricentis.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. 

Something that people should probably be looking at is how technical their team is and whether or not they can do coding. If they are more on the business side where they know all the different flows of the business cases or scenarios, that would be a very good way to use the tool because technical expertise is not required. You should have a couple of resources, but it's not necessary to have  high technical skills.

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 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.