No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

IBM DevOps Test UI vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 22, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM DevOps Test UI
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
26th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
12th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis Tosca
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
1st
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Service Virtualization (2nd), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (2nd), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.6%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 10.1%, down from 20.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis Tosca10.1%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.6%
Other88.3%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Reliable test automation, and test data creation with efficient support
The solution can be improved by removing the need for object matching in the framework. The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run. The reason is that changes were made to how it works with the browser and the startup takes some time. Adjusting those changes to speed up the load time will improve the solution.
reviewer2740515 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Software Engineer 2 at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Automation test development becomes accessible and effective for functional testers
Tricentis Tosca is a codeless tool, making it easy for everyone to understand the transition of how to develop scenarios or test cases. In Tricentis Tosca, analyzing failures is straightforward because every time it fails somewhere, I get the screenshot, which helps me analyze how and why it failed. It has all the modules, including some pre-built ones that can be reused efficiently. Compared to other code tools such as Selenium, where I used to develop one script in one day, with Tricentis Tosca I can easily develop one script in four hours or three hours, saving four to five hours in a day.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"Robust API provides quick turnaround for developers to understand and automate functional test case quickly."
"As it is built on Ellipse/Java and costs less than other tools, it is recommended."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"It helps in automation by using better object recognition as compared to other tools in the market."
"It is 100% compatible with all sorts of database integrations and is compatible with all types of open source TFT-based applications, which makes it a great product to have."
"The technical support is good; at least their response time is good, and whenever we ask them for help regarding deployment customizations, custom code implementation, or other code needs, they heavily support us, assign us IT engineers who work alongside us helping with code-related issues, and stay until the problem is resolved."
"We have to automate thousands of test cases and complete end-to-end SAP on business processes. To manually execute these tasks, it would take us at least two months. By automating these tasks using Tosca, now it takes five to 10 days maximum. Tricentis Tosca is a codeless or scriptless automation tool."
"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."
"We have seen an ROI because we are able to automate test scripts much quicker."
"One feature we like is the live connectivity of the product, in other words, you can push transactions through to live, and you can intercept some transactions and return them back with mocked data."
"Testcase design is most valuable, as it has helped in two different aspects, storing the test data in one place, and deciding how many test cases are needed for a given scenario using one of the inbuilt algorithms, thereby ensuring the test coverage."
"The platform's most valuable feature is model-based testing, which is effective for test case design and optimization."
"I liked the "no required scripting" part as most of the people in my team are not skilled QAs and half of the team reside offshore, thus it suited to most of our requirements."
"It offers many features, such as risk-based testing and scenario creation using Kafka."
 

Cons

"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"It does not fully justify being a paid tool, and it needs improvement."
"With version 8.5 we faced workspace crash issues frequently."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"If in the future there is no support for mobile applications, then we will be using it less."
"If you look at today's current context, I wouldn't recommend RFT because there are far more advanced solutions and products available."
"They should have a different license policy for medium and small companies."
"Not part of my job, but during the upgrade our IT departmend faced several issues in the installation process of the new version."
"Parallel execution is not yet implemented for Tosca. This means you can't execute the same test case on multiple machines remotely."
"I have found that some of the functions could be missed in the solution for new users."
"We ended up going back to Selenium as this tool was very slow with the web applications."
"Many times when we have raised a ticket, we did not get an urgent response."
"Security, UI, and basic performance improvements could be done to the product to enhance its use."
"Very difficult to get information about licensing costs."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing is good but the prices for the products are expensive. A single-user license may go for something like $10,000 to $30,000. There are no additional costs, and support is included within that price."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. It is on the higher side."
"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 is expensive. There is also the training cost, but it does speed up the process. So, you get a return on investment."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is very cheap and ten is very expensive, I rate the pricing a ten. The licensing model is based on a yearly basis."
"I would like to see better costing packs. There are several features but USD $11,000 for one license is expensive."
"The pricing of the solution comes as part of our Tosca bundle."
"Pricing for Tricentis Tosca could be improved because it's very expensive."
"I give the cost of Tricentis Tosca a six out of seven."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
15%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise72
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
How does Tricentis Tosca compare with Worksoft Certify?
Tosca fulfills our business needs better because it is an end-to-end solution across technologies. We like that it is scriptless, so even non-experienced staff can use it. To put it simply, with To...
What do you like most about Tricentis Tosca?
For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.
 

Also Known As

IBM Rational Functional Tester
Orchestrated Service Virtualization
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edumate
HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM DevOps Test UI vs. Tricentis Tosca and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.