Tricentis Tosca Reviews

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 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. 

We use Tricentis Tosca for a workflow system and for SAP.

It works fine for regression tests on the workflow system. Old scripts still work fine in browser based application. Saved and still saves us a lot of time.

SAP embedded is quite an issue. When IE was discontinued we didn't manage to get it working with msedgedriver. The support of Tricentis is below expectation for all the money we spend on them.

Version 2023.2 has a number of issues which they don't fix until the next major release (Not telling when). Badly documentated new settings.

The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca was the ease of use, but it is getting more and more difficult to use. It is almost impossible to use Tosca without programming knowledge. 

The way of creating modules is basically simple. But when you have the module it is trial and error method on settings to get them working in a testcase.

Tricentis Tosca could improve on the ease of use. There is a steep learning curve. The reporting section could be better and some of the new features could be simplified. Additionally, the user management of the client and the server are confusing. There should not be two.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately eight years.

Tricentis Tosca is stable. We have a few scripts that are running for a while now and there have not been any problems.

The scalability of Tricentis Tosca is good. We can add more users which is easy to do.

We have approximately five people who use the solution in my company.

The support from Tricentis Tosca is getting less good. When I have a problem I receive an answer. However, it is not always the answer that helps me to go on.

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

Neutral

I have not used a similar solution prior to Tricentis Tosca.

The initial setup of Tricentis Tosca was complex because of the applications we had.

I rate the initial setup of Tricentis Tosca a four out of five.

We did the implementation of Tricentis Tosca in-house but we had the help from an experienced hired team.

If we did not have Tricentis Tosca we would have to use three more testers to do everything manually. The solution has helped our company.

The price of Tricentis Tosca is approximately Є10,000 for one license. It used to be much cheaper, but they changed their license structure. It used to be a structure where if you bought a license you would receive one year of free support and maintenance. Now they only have a yearly license, and that is expensive. 

The price of the solution does not include all features available. If you need a BI solution or API testing, then you have to pay extra.

I rate the price of Tricentis Tosca a two out of five.

We did evaluate other options for stepping over to another testtool because of the current pricing and the poor support.

I would recommend this solution for browser testing because it's stable, and you can test a lot with it. It has a good user interface for testing and when managing you don't have to do a record all the time. It can be easy to maintain and use scripts.
For SAP and embedded browser apps it doesn't work fine.

Also it is not suitable anymore for users without a technical background.

Tricentis is a growing organization and Tosca is not holding the standards it used to have.

I rate Tricentis Tosca a six out of ten.

We use Tricentis Tosca to test workflows. 

I like how the modules are set up, particularly how you can use the screens you're automating. This automation helps save both time and money because we use less test capacity regarding personnel.

You can scan an entire browser or application window and define all the controls you want to steer, which you can reuse. In other tools, you have to define each control individually, so this feature in Tricentis Tosca is quite nice.

Product quality has declined as it grows, and its updates aren't without fault. The process of resolving problems has slowed, and as it expands into other areas like NeoLoad and other testing tools, the product becomes more complicated. It used to be a small firm with a clear goal, but as it grows, the quality has been affected.

I have been working with the product for eight years. 

I am not satisfied with the tool's technical support. Sometimes, they provide a hint when contacting support, and we figure out the solution ourselves. There are instances where they acknowledge an issue but say they won't solve it until the next release, which might be over half a year away. The response time is quick, but the support is not always very helpful.

Neutral

The tool is expensive. It has become overpriced, especially after Tricentis Tosca grew as a company. Initially, we bought a license with an annual support fee, which wasn't too expensive. However, they changed the model, and now we have to purchase a license yearly, which has become quite costly.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten.