Tricentis Tosca Reviews

Our primary use case is UI-based regression tests on Microsoft Windows.

Compared to the old tools, WinRunner and TestDirector by Mercury Interactive, it accelerated building, performing, and maintaining regression tests by a factor of approximately ten times.

This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated.

It allows for effective test management and an effective test case design.

The most valuable features are:

• Non-scripting test case building
• Test cases are easy to maintain
• Very good test case design module
• All of the features are well integrated into the suite

I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for ten years.

Prior to this solution, we used WinRunner and TestDirector by Mercury Interactive.

The performance with Tricentis Tosca is better.

We primarily use it as an MBT, a model-based automation tool.

The solution is script-less, so you don't need IT knowledge to use the solution in an operational way. This is the most valuable feature. It's also only one of two or three tools that can do good automation on SAP, and in my opinion, it's the best of those.

The test sheet is very good.

There are algorithms that allow you to generate various test cases that guarantee maximum coverage.

If Tosca wants to rule on the RPA world, they have to give some security guarantee.

The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows.

The solution could use different modules that would be useful to an organization. Examples of modules they could add include robotic process automation, analytics, and business intelligence among others.

The stability of the solution is good.

Technical support is very efficient. There's a helpline, but there's also an academy and training support.

The initial setup is very easy. Deployment took about half a day. If you want to deploy it on just the local machine, it will only take about ten minutes. However, if you want to deploy it to an environment with a common repository in a collaborative multi-user mode on a database that allows some concurrent shared work, it might take up to one day.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

My advice to others is to get training by a professional. This will help anyone use the product. Tosca allows users, even if they don't have some IT knowledge, to quickly start and use Tosca after about two weeks. You can take any business person, and just offer them good training. After about two weeks or a month, they could be independent and will be able to automate some complex scenarios. You don't have to be an IT specialist to handle the product. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Primarily test automation for webshops based on PHP code. It was satisfying as long as the GUI did not change permanently.

It did not improve because the GUI was not static, so it was not possible to write tests for a GUI that was in progress.

The XScan was great because it was a handy way to automate on a surface which made it very easy and simple.

It should be more flexible when using the modules; it is kind of frozen there. They should be made more dynamic.

For our applications, it makes the test cases. So far, we have been quite happy with it. So, we don't have any complaints.

We build the test cases, then we just need run it by one person to get feedback right away. Otherwise, it would require planning with certain testers.

Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people.

• It needs better integration with JIRA.
• I would like a better user interface.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

We are satisfied with the support of Tricentis so far.

Setup wasn't that straightforward; it was more complex. It all depends on the environment, because there were a lot of errors on our applications. Therefore, it wasn't an easy setup for us. 

It took time to begin setting up for the first time because it's not a regular setup. It took us a week to set up.

We hired a consultant to figure out all the tools in our company and how they fit in our company before we purchased the solution.

We also evaluated HPE, IBM Rational Functional Tester, and Ranorex. However, for us, Tosca was the perfect choice.

Figure out your requirements and environment.

We had the impression Tosca would be the perfect fit for us. We did a proof of concept test with all our applications, Tosca was able to work with them and drive the proof of concept goal. Finally, we made a decision a year ago to work with Tricentis Tosca. We are quite happy with the product. 

We are using it for end-to-end automation. The performance is good. It's just that it doesn't support applications on the Mac. But overall it is good.

Helps decrease execution time.

We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation.

Making it more stable would be good because we get around 90% stability. It would be great if it were more stable.

It is scalable.

We do use it but it was better a year ago. Now, the turnaround time takes a little more time.

The upgrade I was involved in was complex. We had some issues with it.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are its technology and is it stable enough.

• Multiple scanning engines to automate many different applications.
• Powerful ability to generate different test data combinations from test instances.
• Logical workflow (from requirements through to execution and reporting).
• GUI is easy to learn.

In my case I was able to rapidly construct several automation suites for a government organisation, that greatly enhanced their ability to cover all key areas of functionality in an efficient manner. The main implementation of Tosca was used for regression testing a major upgrade to an insurance claims processing application. It worked very well for this purpose.

At the time I was using the product, the reporting function was lacking in usability and detail. Detailed reporting was generally done outside of Tosca.

Seven months.

Not really, it's generally very stable. There were some occasions early on when the application crashed. However, this was more related to the network environment than the application itself.

No. It is pretty easy to add other users, roles, and control access to different areas of the application. In my case we didn't upscale to a great degree but I know this is possible. Large organisations would take advantage of Tosca's utilisation of the common repository with robust check-in/check-out procedures to eliminate the risk of unintended changes.

Excellent. I was often able to access their chat support instantly and resolved the bulk of my inquiries very rapidly.

No, Tosca was my first automation experience.

It was very straightforward. I didn't do the initial setup. It was via a colleague. He had it up and running, along with a "happy path test" within a morning.

Not my area, but contact Tricentis for this.

No, I was not involved in the choosing of this solution.

Give it a go. Having since used Selenium to build an automation suite in another organisation, I feel Tosca has clear advantages in both the scope of applications that it can automate (web, mobile, windows, and more) as well as the intuitive GUI and powerful generation of test data combinations. Having not come from an IT background, I was able to get up and running with Tosca far quicker than with Selenium.

• Scriptless automation
• Ease of using
• Object Identification Wizard
• Business parameters
• Steering controls

• Our organization is completely based on automation of the activities.
• All the projects based on different technologies, such as SAP and Salesforce, are automated using Tosca.
• SMEs just need to run the scripts developed by automation testers to validate the intended behavior.
• We also use batches to schedule automation activities, which does not need any user attention.
• Hence, automation testers can run the scripts as well as work on the new work at the same time, resulting into increased productivity.

Security, UI, and basic performance improvements could be done to the product to enhance its use.

Six months.

No.

No.

Good.

Selenium WebDriver requires good skillset of coding. However, TOSCA is scriptless, hence anyone can learn it easily.

The online training material offered by Tricentis is very straightforward to get started with it.

The pricing is high, but altogether it offers you the ability to automate all sorts of applications: desktop, web, mobile, etc.

Yes. Selenium WebDriver and QTP.

I will recommend using TOSCA to all users who want to automate their applications or who want to work daily without any hassle.

• Automation of regressive test cases
• Entering process and risk structures as basis for test design
• Entering logical test cases as basis for meaningful executable test cases
• Using the same test tool now as well for manual business testing

Improves the software quality in production by finding more defects with automated test sets, before transporting developments to production.

Reduces the effort for acceptance testing by business colleagues by

1. Reducing the effort for manual regressive tests and by
2. Providing better pre-tested software for business acceptance testing.

Reporting.

About 10 years.

Sometimes new features do not work as shown on slides, in the first release.

No.

Not now. In previous versions yes, for more than 10,000 test cases.

Nine out of 10, and now further improving.

Eight out of 10. Sometimes too (ITIL) process focused and too little content focused.

We used, and still use, our test tools depending on the test focus. But we switch to Tosca whenever respective functionalities are stable, usable in our tests.

Recent upgrade went smoothly. Upgrades have gotten better over time.

Upgrades are done in-house, new features are done with vendor.

We have used Tosca for a long time now. Recent new projects on Tosca have a ROI between one and two years. The cost driver is less the tool than the project effort.

Start with a test version.

Start with a pilot project, have Tricentis or a partner support the setup, pilots and extensions.

Tricentis is very good in communicating and sharing test best practices and often ahead in offering new trends in development and testing.