Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM DevOps Test UI vs Tricentis Tosca comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 16, 2025

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
13th
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 (1st), Mobile App Testing Tools (1st), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of IBM DevOps Test UI is 1.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis Tosca is 14.2%, down from 19.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis Tosca14.2%
IBM DevOps Test UI1.5%
Other84.3%
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

"It is compatible with all sorts of Dark Net applications. Its coverage is very good."
"IBM Rational Functional Tester is very contextual."
"The most valuable feature is the UI component tester."
"Test automation is most valuable because it saves a lot of time."
"The model-based scriptless automation is the most valuable feature because it needs less maintenance as compared to script-based automation."
"It's been very helpful to have connectivity with mobile. The tool also identifies some of the actual changes from the recordings on the actual testing suite. That is something that I really like."
"The solution has plenty of features compared to other solutions."
"We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation."
"Tricentis Tosca is a codeless tool, making it easy for everyone to understand the transition of how to develop scenarios or test cases."
"It offers many features, such as risk-based testing and scenario creation using Kafka."
"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."
"Very user-friendly and the low code automation is really helpful."
 

Cons

"They need to do a complete revamp so that even a non-technical person can manage the tool."
"As many of our products are moving from PC to mobile, the most important thing that this solution needs is mobile app support."
"The latest version has increased load time before testing can be run."
"If the solution is running on Linux, there are some issues around application compatibility."
"Technical support used to be better. It is now a bit difficult to reach out compared to previous experiences."
"Tricentis Tosca currently does not support any mobile testing and can be improved."
"Many times when we have raised a ticket, we did not get an urgent response."
"The UI does not have the option of automating the scroll bars."
"I would like to see something in terms of AI capabilities."
"Running the regression – if multiple lists are executed at once or if a list contains 200+ tests, it’s a pain to stop the execution."
"The product needs to improve object identification. The identify with properties and anchor methods work perfectly, while the by-index and image methods may face challenges."
"The initial setup was complex."
 

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."
"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."
"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."
"A competitor of Tricentis Tosca: Katalon Studio, is very similar and offers lower pricing, though Tricentis Tosca offers more features and benefits."
"There is an annual cost for Tricentis."
"In terms of the licensing costs for Tricentis Tosca, we are spending more or less $70,000 per year. We have a very complex mechanism because there are some business users and some BI users, so the licensing structure is not simple, but support is included."
"Pricing could be better."
"​It is an expensive tool compared to other test automation tools. It has a lot of advantages over other tools."
"Although the product is slightly more expensive than tools, its automation capabilities and reduced scripting needs justify the cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
21%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Government
7%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
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: January 2026.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.