Tricentis Tosca Reviews

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 use Tricentis Tosca for testing.

The user management could improve in Tricentis Tosca because it is confusing. It would be better to have it in one place. Having to add it to the cloud and to a specific project can be a mess. 

In the future, they could improve overall mobile functionality.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable. However, we had a situation with an application we wanted to test some reset passwords. We have the two-factor authentication enabled on sending an SMS to a number and in this case, we did not find anything to solve it. There was not anything to automate me getting the number, and proceed with it automatically without going and testing it manually.

The technical support is good, we were satisfied.

I have previously used Selenium in the company I used to work for and it was perfect. The solution was very good at testing web applications, but not Windows, or desktop applications. Tricentis Tosca does not have customized reporting tools ready but Selenium you can build and customize whatever you want.

Tricentis Tosca is an expensive solution and there is an annual license required. The whole licensing process is confusing and it could be made easier.

My advice is if companies have developers, or the potential to teach developers, or QA teams, I would suggest they use Selenium because the price of Tricentis Tosca is expensive.

I rate Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten.

• Scriptless tool -- great for those, like me, who don't have a lot of knowledge in coding to test software
• Works quickly and easily

I have worked a lot with Tosca for the past year, and it has helped our organization complete many tasks which most of the other tools couldn’t.

Being a scriptless tool was pretty helpful for me, as I don't have a great knowledge of coding. Its features helps us complete the work soon, and in an easy way.

It’s been one year I have been using this tool and it's been pretty good working with it.

5/5

5/5

It was easy, and a straightforward approach.

With it being a scriptless tool, it helps people without coding knowledge to work with ease.

The amazing features provided by Tricentis takes automation to a different world and it's fun working with it.

I wouldn't usually describe user automation as a key feature but it is a key feature. The ability to scan the application and for it to have all of the attributes and things you need and put them into the test is the most valuable feature for us.

We did a full-blown POC. It was super successful and we were able to automate a large number of our scripts and save a lot of time and also automate a lot of our testing. We're now able to to build and get tests resolved. It has totally automated our testing, which is great. Now we are extending it across all of our teams.

We haven’t really defined this yet. Some tools we are trying to use, like virtualization, haven't been used yet, but this is really something on our end. What we can’t do we have customizations available. We know there’s a feature in the next release which automates even more, and we are trying to find a stop time so we can upgrade and get that feature.

It may be different for other companies, but for us, establishing a set of procedures to get people trained was important. The tool is fairly easy to use, but it's important that you have consistency and standards in place when using it.

I've been using it for seven months.

It's very easy to install and easy for people to use.

There have been no bugs, and it's very stable.

We are rolling it out to five of our companies. We are trying to control things internally but the solution itself is 100% scalable.

We have had them here on site nearly every week. If they aren't here they are just a phone call away. We have happily invested to get extra training. From our standpoint we have to control the roll-out speed.

The initial set up is easy, not very complex at all. You can choose how you want to do it. Depending on the size of your company. You can choose how you want to do it.

We had been a HP UFT user for a long time. We tried other tools, but this far and above exceeds this in terms of ease and flexibility with test scripts. For a lot of the tools you don’t need an automator.

For me there are three outstanding features:

The first one is the test case design feature. When using the feature in your project - I definitely recommend using it – it forces you to think about your test approach, and your overall test strategy. Using this feature you have to define valid and invalid states and conditions of your SUT from a business perspective (e.g. defining a valid age or a valid combination of two business properties). The tool helps you here by generating all necessary combinations automatically out of your prior definitions. You link them to a test case template and all the necessary combinations of your test cases are generated automatically. In most cases you need to adapt the generated test cases for the specific test case, but the fundamental work is done by the tool.

The second one is the simplicity of creating test cases and the underlying model based approach. The process of creating a test case is pretty straightforward. In case of a GUI application you “scan” the current screen of the SUT first. Afterwards all UI controls are displayed and you can choose the relevant one for your test. A representation of the screen – a module – is created and stored in a module folder. You can then simply drag and drop this module into your test case. In the test case, you select, for each UI control, an action e.g. “click” or a specific value. Afterwards, you can arrange the test cases in different execution lists, which are the representations of a test run from a business perspective (e.g. smoke test, regression test, etc.).

Overall, everything is reusable simply via drag and drop, and you will always have a single point of maintenance (e.g. in a future release of your SUT a button was added, you just need adapt the module. Linked test cases and execution lists are updated automatically).

The third one is the support of multiple UI technologies as well as non-UI technologies. In addition, there are (extra payable) features like mobile testing support and service virtualization capabilities.

The tool is meant to be an enterprise solution for automating software tests. The vendor has its own test philosophy and wants you to follow it. It tries to hide all technical information of the SUT and forces you to always look at your SUT from a business perspective.

The target audience are business domain experts and software testers without technical knowledge. This can be confusing for testers with a technical background who are used to scripting their way through the SUT.

Introducing the Tricentis Tosca Testsuite in a company goes ideally along with changing the whole business process of software test. I would say the company needs to adapt to the tool, and not the other way round, which is not always bad.

Though the tool claims to be an enterprise solution, it lacks some enterprise features. I would like to see a central management capability for admins, where you define initial workspaces, parametrize settings or update all clients centrally. Furthermore, the tool needs a real versioning functionality.

The out-of-the-box support for third party ALM tools must be improved. Embedding it in an existing application landscape often goes along with developing an adapter for third party components. In terms of extending the product from a technical viewpoint, the documentation for APIs is rare and incomplete. It definitely needs more code examples and a platform for developers.

The tool always gives the user one specific view where you create your test cases. This works perfectly for GUI applications, but not always for non-GUI applications. For instance, when defining test cases for web services, you have exactly the same layout as creating a test case for a Java application. Technology specific characteristics are somehow mapped into the existing view, which increases the complexity. Furthermore, the abstraction at non-GUI tests is not given as in GUI tests. You really need to have the technical understanding of web services or XML to create test cases, this runs counter to the target audience.

The test case design functionality is really complex, and tends to be rocket science, so this needs to be simplified. It goes along with the reporting functionality, when you want to create your own layout and customize the report. I didn’t really get it to work.

It would be nice to distribute test cases to different machines for parallel execution. Especially when it comes to mobile test or multi-browser test where the test case keeps the same but the underlying technical base changes.

I ‘ve been working with the Tricentis Tosca Testsuite for more than four years in the context of software test consultancy. I have a decent overview how the tool is used in different companies over several projects. I have gained experience in all functional areas of the tool. Furthermore, I have developed a lot of technical extensions to enhance the tools capabilities.

Overall I would rate the customer service as excellent. The support is available via email and phone 24/5 and is located in the headquarters of Tricentis. This means that the support staff is sitting next to the technical experts which, nowadays, is rare. You get a quick response that is often the solution for your problem. In case it is a more difficult inquiry, and is not solvable with first level support, you’ll be informed that your inquiry will be passed to an expert. Depending on the complexity, you can count on having a solution within one or two working days, which is pretty fair.

Furthermore the support team offers remote sessions, together with technical experts, to find a solution directly on your machine. The support is available in German and English.

On the downside, the community outside the Tosca support portal seems to be pretty small, or is nearly nonexistent. You hardly find solutions, or best practices, for a specific problem on the web. Other vendors have a more active community, and you can often simply Google a solution to the problem. In most cases with Tricentis, you need the support team or you have to contract on-site consultancy.

It depends on your environment and your company policy. Basically, you have three components: a license server, a database and the desktop application which needs to be installed on the same machine where the SUTis located. If you want to use the mobile and/or service virtualization feature you need additional components and preparations.

You will not find an official pricing list. You have to contact the local sales team.

The tool is a desktop application and comes with all advantages and disadvantages of a desktop application in terms of deployment and scalability.

There is a cloud version (TaaS), but this version is only suitable for manual tests and web tests. Web applications need to be publicly accessible within the cloud environment (so it is not suitable for internal testing environments). It would be a nice feature if the cloud version of Tricentis Tosca Testsuite is able to drive your locally installed application.

Do not buy this tool if you simply need a driver for your automation, as open source solutions (e.g. Selenium), or technology specific solutions are more suitable here. Also, if you are looking for a complete ALM solution, there are more capable tools out there. If you have a testing department full of techies, they will feel too restricted with the tool. It’s also not suitable for manual testing only, as there are better solutions for this purpose out there. But, if you have the plan to test multiple technologies, and your testing departments consists mainly of business domain experts or software tester with few technical background, and you are planning to introduce this tool as an enterprise solution and/or want to replace existing fragmented solutions, then it is worth evaluating it.

You definitely want to have a product training first prior to implementation, and you definitely want to have on-site consultancy while making your first steps with the tool. In most cases, you also need technical consultancy in cases the tool does not recognize UI controls.
Focus on a small prototype project first together with on-site consultancy. Take the learnings from that project, and do the next one on your own.

The company is a lot smaller than the top dogs, but they are compensating it with passion and a lot of new features in every release.

Tosca can work with a wide range of technological solutions. So Tosca is not just a replacement for open-source products. It's integrated with different technologies, desktop applications, package solutions like SAP, and mobile applications.

Right now, I can't think of any areas where Tosca can improve because we are not yet that experienced with delivering services based on Tosca.

I've been using Tosca for nearly three years.

We haven't implemented Tosca at a large enough scale to really comment on that. 

We haven't had any major problems with the product, but when we've had issues, Tricentis support has been generally responsive.

The implementation process is manageable and easy enough. It's an example of a good implementation approach.

Primarily I'm dealing with customers looking for a cheap solution, and they are willing to try open-source automation solutions. So from this perspective, the price of Tosca is not as competitive. And these alternatives are on the radar of larger companies that are investing in the delivery of their products. So Tosca is not penetrating the market as much because of the license prices.

I would rate Tosca eight out of 10. The only disadvantage is the high price. Still, I would say it's worth trying because the barrier is low to implement automation, and it works with a broad scope of technologies and applications.

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.