Tricentis Tosca Reviews

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

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

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

The initial setup isn't too difficult. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

We used IBM Rational or Functional Tester and it was just outdated and we needed to go down the toolset.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are end-users and customers. 

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

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

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

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

Tricentis Tosca is a really cool tool that you don't have to be technical to use it. Additionally, the solution is easy to use. The modules, libraries, and reusable are in an efficient way to update all the tests. I find it spot on with that. We also started using the design which we switched from Excel. The design was superior to Excel.

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

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

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

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

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

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

I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

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.