Tricentis Tosca Reviews

The solution has streamlined the regression testing process by integrating with Solution Manager.

The most valuable feature is automating regression testing scripts linked with Solution Manager. This functionality supports our current requirement for automated testing without utilizing other features like LiveCompare.

One major area for the product's improvement is simplifying the synchronization process of test cases between Tricentis Tosca and Solution Manager. It has been a challenge and could be streamlined to enhance user experience.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately six months.

The product is stable. 

The platform is scalable. 

The technical support services are generally good, though there are areas for improvement regarding response time and overall competence.

The initial setup was straightforward. However, synchronization of scripts from Solution Manager to Tosca was a critical part that required careful handling.

Our in-house team handled the implementation. 

I rate the platform an eight out of ten. 

We needed a testing tool that could be used for automating SAP, so that was our use case for Tricentis Tosca, and amongst the candidates we tested, the solution suited us well.

To me, what stands out the most about Tricentis Tosca is that even if I'm not a technical tester, I could pick up on how to use it very quickly because of the mechanisms of the tool, for example, its scanning mechanism. I'm not so technical, but I'm able to maneuver through Tricentis Tosca and derive capability. It's a user-friendly tool. It's not very complex.

In terms of areas for improvement, Tricentis has a variety of tools, even its test management tool called qTest. Tricentis Tosca does have integration with different Tricentis tools, but the integration is geared towards a larger organization perspective. For very small organizations that have minimal licenses, the integration needs to be improvised. For example, I belong to a smaller organization that has only one license, so the capability that the tool provides for integration isn't sufficient because my company needs to have separate workspaces. When Tricentis Tosca is going to be running, it is going to use that license, but my company wants another separate workspace to record, relay, and test. This is what my team has been struggling with, and the mechanism is probably there, but that needs more time and investigation, so I can't say that I'm one hundred percent certain that Tricentis Tosca, in terms of integration for a smaller organization is insufficient.

Another area for improvement is that Tricentis Tosca is currently just a Windows-based tool which affects the market because nowadays, Windows isn't the only operating system, for example, there's also Apple or IOS that's moving much faster than Windows.

Pricing for Tricentis Tosca could be improved as well because it's very expensive.

Making Tricentis Tosca available on other operating systems is what I'd like to see in the next version of the tool. That would be beneficial. From what I've heard, you should never have the Tricentis Tosca server installed on a VM, but my company has it running on a VM and so far, there hasn't been any issue except for the VM rebooting, though I'm not sure at all if it had anything to do with having the server on the VM, or some other reasons.

I've been using Tricentis Tosca for almost two years now.

Tricentis Tosca is a very stable product, and I don't have any complaints about the tool, stability-wise.

Scaling up Tricentis Tosca would be an issue for us because of the licensing. As it's an extremely expensive product and we're a smaller organization, we don't need that many licenses, but sometimes it would be great if we could have two licenses because there are other people in the company who were trained and certified to use Tricentis Tosca. The product does provide a multi-user workspace, but we only have one license currently, so only one execution is possible at a time.

I've contacted the technical support for Tricentis Tosca. There's a support website where you can directly raise incidents with the support team and follow up. The support team is very knowledgeable about the product, though the only downside is the response time because sometimes the response isn't timely, but whenever there is any kind of response, support is very detailed and knows the product well. On a scale of one to five, with one being the worst and five being the best, technical support for Tricentis Tosca is five out of five. It's really good.

I have not tested any other SAP-related testing tools. The only tool I tested hands-on was Tricentis Tosca, and it suited the needs of my company, so it's the product we're using.

Tricentis Tosca was set up by the infrastructure team, so I don't have information on whether the initial setup was extremely straightforward or not, but I do know that there was no issue with getting the tool set up. My company has a cloud license and an on-premises license, so there are various setup options available for Tricentis Tosca.

We implemented Tricentis Tosca through our in-house team.

As for the licensing cost for Tricentis Tosca, I'm not one hundred percent sure how much it is, but I know that it's an expensive product. I wouldn't be able to rate Tricentis Tosca in terms of pricing because I don't have information on the prices of other products tested by my organization. My team tested Worksoft and that was also an expensive tool.

Few tools provide the capability to test SAP automation tools, and the majority of the products are more suitable for a larger enterprise and have higher pricing, but if you're a very technical tester, there are other tools you could utilize. Technically skilled people and technical automation testers may be able to use open source tools, but for the not-so-technical testers, only a few SAP-related tools are available, but from what I've heard, they're priced on the higher side. I won't be able to advise if Tricentis Tosca is more expensive than its competitors because I don't have pricing information for any of those tools.

My company uses Tricentis Tosca.

My advice to people looking into implementing the tool is that it's great to use, but you need to be more hands-on. Tricentis has certifications available, so the more you advance your skillset and get yourself certified, you'll learn all the mechanisms of how Tricentis Tosca can be used. So far, the tool ticked most of the boxes based on my company's needs.

I'm rating Tricentis Tosca nine out of ten. I didn't give it a perfect score because it's currently based on Windows only, and its cost is high but other than those two cons, everything has been great about the product.

My company is just a user. It has no partnership with Tricentis Tosca.

We use it to automate testing. In terms of the version, we're up to date. We're on the latest version. 

It speeds up automation processes within testing.

The use of automation is most valuable.

There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases.

There should be better testing in the ETL, warehouse, or big data environment. They need to look at the speed of that and how they do that type of testing.

There should be better support. We should be able to speak to somebody.

I have been using this solution for six months.

The product is stable, but it can be a little slow, but that's a consequence of the fact that you're able to automate very quickly.

If you buy more licenses, it's scalable. 

We just have a single instance, and we have multiple users with different projects.

Their technical support is fairly good, but it's all done through email, which is a little difficult.

I've used a lot of different automation tools. I'm a contractor. I go into different organizations. So, I didn't really switch. This company was using it.

It is fairly easy. The worst thing about it is grabbing a license every time you log in. That takes a little bit of time.

The deployment duration depends on whether you use the on-premise version or cloud version. It takes a few hours for the on-premise version.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we just implemented the tool, did the training, and then started moving testing over to the tool.

We did it ourselves. We had just one person for the deployment.

We have seen an ROI because we are able to automate test scripts much quicker.

It is expensive. There is also the training cost, but it does speed up the process. So, you get a return on investment.

I evaluated the freeware tools.

When reviewing the tool, you should make sure that any automation you've already got integrates fully with the Tosca tool. That's the biggest thing. Migration of any current automation is potentially a really difficult process.

I'd give it an eight out of ten.

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

The most valuable feature is being able to create a test case by recording some scenarios and then leasing that task case to other scenarios.

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

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

I have been working with Tricentis Tosca for one year.

We use the latest version.

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

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

My experience with the Tricentis website support was good.

I have experience with Selenium HQ and Parasoft.

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

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

It took approximately three months to complete the deployment.

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

I was able to learn the installation process myself.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

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

We are partners with Tricentis.

I would rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

We have been using this solution in my organization. There are several clients who have come back to us asking for different automation tools and our views on which automation tools can be used in their respective projects.

We have been evaluating for these clients. The evaluations we were doing, was for our client but done within the organization only.

The most valuable feature is the UI.

We work primarily on evaluating the UI. We evaluated Tosca BI and a bit for Tosca APIs and think they are very useful.

The reporting is really nice. There are many clients who ask for a feature with any automation tool that can generate good reports for them. There is only one such tool that facilitates that option, which is Tosca.

The volume for the BI testing is limited. If they could provide a few options to use it, using Tosca only, that could be a great thing because there are a lot of clients who do not actually want to go for the BI, but then they do have the database testing.

I know that Tosca provides the feature but it's very minuscule.

The UI does not have the option of automating the scroll bars. There are workarounds for that but for example, if I open two tabs that have the same page then it will give me another difficulty in scanning those options. 

In the next release, including this in Tricentis would be great.

I have been acquainted with this solution for approximately eight months.

So far, what we have used has been stable.

I have read some reviews where they have expressed that they are not happy with the stability, but so far, I have not faced any such issues.

The scalability is good. If I had to rate it out of five, I would say that it would be a three-point five to four.

We have anywhere from 500 to 750 people who are using this solution in our organization.

Technical support is good. Their turnaround time is usually within 24 to 48 hours, but normally we have a response within 24 hours.

Previously, we did not work with any other solution.

We have always worked with the demo licenses, which included support from the Tricentis teams. They have always been able to set up the licensing.

I would say that it is not that straightforward.

On average, it did not take more than two to three hours if you know the process properly. To get it started, it will require at least six hours.

The disadvantage is that it is very expensive.

I would like to see better costing packs. There are several features but USD $11,000 for one license is expensive. If it had more interaction and if the license cost was a little less it would be better and rate higher.

The recommendation of this solution depends from client to client and what their requirements would be, the parameters, and what is important to them. 

If the client wants good support and at the same time they want to have a good database included with the Automation Testing Suite, and is ready to spend the money, then we would definitely suggest Tricenta Tosca as a good option.

Again, it is dependant on the client's requirements and what they would want in an automation tool.

If you have Linux or Mac machines, then it gets very difficult to implement Tosca. I would suggest using it. 

For testing, they would want to migrate miscellaneous scripts and use Tosca for those migrations. But, it's very difficult. 

My suggestion would be to go with the Tricentis Suites and the Selenium Automation Suites.

From a positive perspective, I would want people to use the reporting from Tosca. They have very good reporting. The reporting feature is very user-friendly and very easy to use.

I would rate Tricenta Tosca an eight out of ten.

We are using this product for web UI testing, SAP, and API testing.

We are using a multi-user environment and the central repository gives everyone very easy access, which lets them re-use the models or whatever artifacts they need from other teams.

Apart from that, with the distributed execution, we are able to execute thousands of test cases in a very small amount of time.

These two things, I feel have been very helpful in my project.

I have found the test templates to be very useful.

Distributed execution with RDP is highly useful.

This solution is very easy to learn and any non-programmer or manual tester, with little experience in automation, can pick it up quite easily. 

It has a built-in repository to store all of the artifacts in the same place.

The inbuilt test datasheet that it has can be simplified and improved.

There are some performance challenges, specifically when we are not using it on a virtual machine, but when we are using it on a local machine.

In order to integrate test management tools, we have to buy another product call Tosca Connect. It would be better if this were included so that integration with tools like Jira or Azure DevOps was included out of the box.

One of the issues that we are facing is that the size of the repository continues increasing. They should provide tools to minimize or at least reduce the repository size.

I have been dealing with Tricentis Tosca for between two, and two and a half years.

Tricentis Tosca is very stable and we are using it extensively. We have people working in India, as well as in the US and Europe, so we use concurrent licensing. Most of the time, everything is being utilized.

It is pretty scalable because of the templates. We can have a single template expand into hundreds of test cases, so it is scalable. In my project, we have between 50 and 60 people how are using it.

The technical support is an area where Tricentis can improve. Many times when we have raised a ticket, we did not get an urgent response. There is a time lag between the process of raising the ticket and getting a final resolution. There is some resolution in the interim, but to receive a final resolution will usually take between two and three weeks.

I had to call technical support for one of the issues regarding a test data survey. We didn't have Microsoft Excel on our workstations so there was a question of how to upload the data. The final resolution for that issue took two to three weeks, or even longer.

I was not involved in the initial deployment, although I feel that the installation of it is simple. I am just not aware of how to configure the repository.

My understanding is that it's an expensive product, although I don't know the specifics with regards to pricing.

I was not involved in the decision-making process.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using Tricentis Tosca is that for test automation, you are not required to be a programmer or very technical.

Overall, this is a good product and I definitely recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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

This product contains a lot of functionality.

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

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

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

We have been using Tricentis Tosca for about six months.

I would say it's a stable solution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for test automation and manual tests, and we use it as our central repository for all test cases.  Our test cases focus on front end testing and back-end testing.  Tosca BI is what we use for back-end testing.  

We also have built out RPA processes that run in Tosca in conjunction with DEX.

We're currently going through an upgrade of a system here, in-house, and Tosca has allowed us to do more testing compared to what we were previously able to do. In the past, it would just take too much time for humans to do. This additional testing that we're doing, which provides additional test coverage for the upgrade, would take a couple of individuals three weeks to do, and we're able to do it within 24 hours with Tosca.

Also, the solution enables us to run the entire regression test suite, immaterial of where a change has been made. We're able to run all our regression tests at one time. We do not have CI/CD set up yet, so it still has to be manually kicked off. For example, for the in-house upgrade I mentioned, most of what they're building is regression test cases because we want to make our upgrades faster and we want to do them more frequently. So as the users are building out the test cases, they're also creating the regression execution list. They can build upon that and then run that when they need to. And then all they do is do the analysis of the execution.

Tosca is also slowly starting to remove redundant test cases. We're working with the users to build better test cases and remove those redundancies as well. This really helps because we have the central repository which allows us to share everybody's test cases and to reuse the test cases globally. We have delivery teams in Edinburgh and in the Netherlands as well as here in the US. It really allows for that single collaboration and for reduction and reuse of test cases. We're still analyzing how this has affected our testing efficiency. That's one of the reasons we're upgrading to 12.3. We want the Tricentis Analytics to help paint that picture a little bit better for us.

We are starting to see the test speed increase a little bit. Looking, again, at that in-house upgrade's tests, if we had manual testers doing it, it would take a couple of weeks, and now we can execute test cases in 24 hours. Another team just completed some test automation test cases that take two minutes to run. When they first ran them they ran into errors and issues which were legitimate issues. The developers fixed them and they ran the tests again and found some more errors. They went back to developers. The whole time it took to resolve things was about 20 minutes. That is a huge improvement over how things worked before. It would have taken hours if it was manually tested, verified, etc.

Finally, we have BAs who have been trained on Tosca, people who have picked it up fairly quickly with little background in development or coding, and they've been able to get up and running on it fairly quickly. We would like to get to the business to be able to help control testing as well, but we're not there yet. We are using exploratory testing, but we're not 100 percent using that quite yet.

The most valuable features are 

• Tosca BI 
• Tosca Commander.

Tosca BI is important to make sure that our data integrity is in check and validated; to make sure our data is good. Our data is the number-one important driver for our company, so if that's not good, we have some big problems. 

Tosca Commander lets any test cases that are UI driven validate, and tests the UI and expected results.

Also, the nice thing about the model's solution is that we're able to build out the modules within Tosca, to facilitate ease of maintaining the test cases. It allows one spot to do an update and that flows through all the test cases that need to be updated.

The main area where there is room for improvement is how they do upgrades. Going through this current upgrade, we were delayed a month because we are using a third-party tool. It's called Tosca Connect by Tasktop. When this latest upgrade broke that relationship between the two, it took Tricentis a month to come back with a workable solution. To me, that resulted in critical customer impact and it took way too long for them to resolve. Their whole upgrade process needs to be better and cleaner, from an end-user standpoint.

4 years

The stability seems pretty robust. We've come across some minor issues, but I think you'll have that with any kind of thing with any software. Those issues were the result of a combination of the environment and not having the knowledge of other things that would help resolve them.

In terms of scalability, one of the things I do is challenge people to prove that it doesn't work. It has yet to be proven to me that it doesn't work with something. We've always found a way to be able to do test automation with it.

We have developers and BAs using the tool. We have 16 delivery teams and there are an average of seven people on each team. We require two people for maintenance of the solution. They are test automation engineers. If you're talking about maintaining test cases, everybody on the delivery team is involved. It's in their goals to maintain their test cases for what they deliver, and that includes developers and BAs.

Every day, Tosca is being used more and more. Part of our digital transformation is that we keep growing the tool base and what the test cases are.

Tosca's technical support is mediocre. I've worked with better support. The reason I say that is because, here in the US, if we put in a support ticket, that ticket usually goes to the European support and there's that time lag. Something that could be responded to within an hour or two can have a 24-hour gap until we get any response.

Also, sometimes we run into some who are technical and then we run into support members who aren't very technical, and who just give a canned answer. That's not very helpful. There's definitely room for improvement in terms of their support.

We used Selenium before Tosca. One of the reasons we decided to look at other tools was that, with Selenium, the maintenance of the scripts started becoming higher. The more and more that test cases were built, the higher the maintenance cost was and we started seeing a diminishing return as a result. 

Also, you really can't do database testing, for the most part. There are ways around that limitation, but it just doesn't work very well with Selenium. 

From a reporting standpoint, you really can't produce robust reports like you can within Tosca. 

Finally, the infrastructure with Selenium is a little bit more challenging and there's really no built-in test management with Selenium as well.

On a scale of one to ten, with one being straightforward and ten being complex, the setup was around six or seven. It wasn't completely straightforward but it wasn't totally complex either. It just needed some insight from Tricentis to make sure things were being done correctly.

The first deployment took about a week. We then went through an upgrade where we used their consulting service as well, because that was when they changed how the licensing was done and the license server. That took about two weeks to do. With this latest upgrade, we're going on our fifth week now. It's taken us a little longer because of that issue that we uncovered.

Our implementation strategy was a global implementation, where we empowered all delivery teams to be able to use Tosca. We set up the application servers and the repository in a global data center and then we pushed out Tosca Commander to all the delivery teams so they could do test automation and manual testing as well.

We used a Tricentis consultant for the first setup and deployment. They were fantastic. They're very knowledgeable, they're great at what they do, they know the product inside and out, and it really helped speed things up. 

ROI is one of the reasons we're trying to get Tricentis Analytics set up, so we can provide factual data on the test cases and the return. We have KPIs set up to help us with that.

We paid upfront for the licenses and maintenance and we pay the maintenance fees as we move forward, yearly. There are no additional costs that I am aware of.

We evaluated SmartBear, HPE QTP (now UFT), QuerySurge, and Alteryx.

It was very apparent that Tosca was an all-in-one solution. We could do database testing, UI, and API testing. The others focus on one area. HPE and SmartBear focus on things such as UI/UX interface-type testing, while Alteryx and QuerySurge focus on backend database testing. Tricentis encompasses all that and that's why we selected them.

If you're going to have somebody come in and help set up, don't go with a third-party vendor, but have Tricentis consultants come in, do training, and help set up. It's worth the extra money to have them come in and do right, versus a third-party that might not know everything. That was our experience. We tried the third-party route to help us, and we immediately saw that it was not the right way to go. That's when we went to Tricentis themselves to come in and help us.

The biggest lesson I've learned is more connected to the tool's adoption. If people have been doing the same thing for over ten years, it tends to be a little bit hard for them to switch over because they want to do things the way they've always been doing them. But the tool itself is fairly simple. It's a pretty solid tool.

There are a few ways to overcome the resistance to new technology. But it's really about creating urgency around why the tool is important to the company and why people need to adopt it. We've done lunch-and-learns to help people understand it. We also champion any success stories with the tool, through newsletters that go out. Sometimes, it's just about bringing in new people with the right mindset.

We've slowly been increasing our rate of testing automation using Tosca. We did a digital transformation with SAFe Agile, and then with adopting test automation. So the tool-adoption piece has taken a little bit longer. We're not quite where we want to be yet. We're still building on it. Tosca covers about 50 percent of our test cases at this point. The solution hasn't reduced our cost of testing yet. We're still a little immature in this process.

In terms of delivering more features for release, we are watching features but we're not there yet. We're just not mature enough to have those hard facts to help us state that this is helping complete more features. From a defects standpoint, we're trying to get a better handle on how defects are captured here, because before there wasn't a concise, approved process on defects. Everybody did their own thing and I'm pretty sure things fell through the cracks. People weren't identifying defects as defects. That's another one of the things we're trying to get better at.

Tricentis keeps building on BI and Tosca itself, and they're just getting better and better every time. A lot of the things they're focusing on are the right things.