Tricentis Tosca Reviews

Ability to test Java Swing UI on business application.

It was the only way to organize and support automation testing process for our re-insurance tool for underwriters.

Browser compatibility (probably solved in the newest versions).

Version 8 of Tosca had weak compatibility with automation via browsers. Firefox and IE produced issues, unexpected quits during execution of automation test, and during automated clicks at elements. Also, execution of tests was possible at one thread only (at the same time other instruments for automation, like Selenium, allow using multiple threads). But probably some of mentioned problems are not actual for up to date versions of Tosca.

No issues.

Not all of UI elements were managed correctly by regular Tosca functions, we was forced to use Custom Controls for doing that.

Eight out of 10.

A bit complex.

We were forced to use a custom version of IBM Java and custom controls for managing of Java Swing UI elements. Some time was required to understand how to link all this stuff with Tosca (most of our questions were ultimately answered in Tosca documentation). Time for first setups was three to four hours, per employee’s laptop, but after some attempts it was shortened to one hour.

Yes I can recommend Tosca, especially for Java Swing applications.

AutoIt.

• Test case design
• Shows results in the requirements section
• Manual test cases
• Automation

Test automation – how you can record the module. It’s already easier to record than it was, but there is still room for improvement.

UI has gotten better but could still be improved.

There are some keyword shortcuts in test case design and in general that could be introduced. Sometimes everything is too big – it’s hard to describe.

I've used it for four years.

Not so far because we only started automating now. So far we have not tried to move the existing project to a new version- we just started.

With the license stability, we have had a lot of issues. There were many interruptions to the connection and took two-three weeks and have installed the license ourselves.

We just started – it should be ok.

Quite good – they were trying to solve the problem.

It was ok. I have seen better. They tried to find solutions quickly so that is a plus, and they always called back when there was an appointment or said they would call back.

No previous version was used.

Straightforward – only problem was with the license server.

We looked at Ranorex and Eggplant. We decided to go with Testsuite because you can integrate manual test cases and you can see the reports in a nice way and see how the test case is going in the requirement section.

We use the product for web and API automation. 

I am impressed with the product's script test. 

The product needs to improve its pricing. It also needs to improve the infrastructure and DEX agent setup. 

I am using the product for two years. 

The product is stable so far. 

The solution is stable. We had to scale up since our team size had grown. My company has 20 users for the product. 

Support takes time sometimes. At times, we have been able to figure out answers ourselves. Else, we have to rely on the support to create custom modules which takes time. 

Neutral

The product's setup is easy if you have someone experienced on your team. You have to build the infrastructure, database, and a lot of other things. 

I would rate the overall product a seven out of ten. The tool is easy if you are able to find the right set of people. 

• 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.

The model-based scriptless automation is the most valuable feature because it needs less maintenance as compared to script-based automation.

Tricentis Tosca supports 35 technologies, such as web, mobile, Salesforce, Java, SAP, ServiceMax, and Flash applications.

Tosca follows the shift-left approach. A new resource can start automation on the first day of its project.

Parallel execution is not yet implemented for Tosca. This means you can't execute the same test case on multiple machines remotely. For execution, test cases have to be present on that machine. Even while, a test case is executed you can't perform any other activity; you end up sitting idle during execution.

I have used this solution for 18 months.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support is fair.

Previously, we were using Selenium. We switched to Tosca due to the less maintenance aspect and the wide technology support which it provides.

Configuration is easy.

No idea about the licensing cost.

Whilst selecting a vendor, we look for factors such as technical support and maintenance.

If you are looking for automation of the packaged application and less maintenance, then go for Tosca.

• Complete or partial test automation
• Methodology for reducing the number of test cases needed along with high risk coverage
• Easy way to prioritize requirements
• Ease of test case maintenance
• It can be used by people with no previous programming knowledge
• Agile

Test case automation and ease of test case maintenance through Tosca has reduced the manpower needed for testing, reducing the time needed for testing, and has thus saved money. Management of projects also got a lot easier.

• They could improve scanning of the applications under test
• Useful tips could be improved
• Better and graeter number of examples in manuals
• Reduced cost of licenses

I've used it since March 2014.

Sometimes it is a bit slow when the project is too big and too complex. If there are custom controls being used, sometimes a scanning of the system under test lasts longer than it should.

Medium to high. (always quick to response, but sometimes not that helpful).

Medium to high. (always quick to response, but sometimes not that helpful).

We previously used HP Application Lifecycle Management for manual testing. We chose to switch to Tosca because of the test case automation and it offers easier management.

Initial setup is pretty much straightforward, but the licenses need to be managed separately the after setup.

We implement it through an in-house team.

ROI is high because of the market that is switching more and more to agile, automated testing, and our company also develops add-on for Tosca.

There are four types of licenses available, and you should use one that best suits your resources and preconditions. Because of expensive licenses, if your company is new to the market, do not start a business using Tosca if you expect slow growth - use cheaper solutions instead, and switch to Tosca once you are overwhelmed with projects and work.

The most valuable feature is the UI-based interface for building modules and turning modules into test cases.

It greatly accelerated regression testing cycle via automated regression.

Upgrading from one version to another requires maintenance and rework in existing scripts. This is too much for my taste.

We have been using this since 2013.

There were no issues with stability.

We had to do extensive customization on top of their CI/Distributed Execution engine in order to integrate this into our Continuous Delivery pipeline.

Technical support is excellent.

This was my first automated testing tool.

The initial setup can be quite complex and training is required.

It's not cheap, but you get what you pay for.

We evaluated several other options which included all the most popular automated testing tools.

Be sure you are ready to support it earnestly with training and focus. If you do that, then it is worthwhile.

Valuable features include generating data including ECP, BVC and risk-based opportunities:

• If the data is vast, we may miss a few scenarios. To avoid this, the Tosca tool provides an inbuilt feature.
• Classifying tests into two types: Equivalence partitioning (+.-) and boundary value tests (inbuilt feature of Tosca).
• Risk-based opportunities are identified based on customer weightage for the modules (inbuilt feature of Tosca).

It has decreased the time for generating test data and risk-based opportunities which has helped us to cover key areas.

The Support TDD and BDD could be improved.

We have been using the product for a year, but we have been using HPE products for seven years.

We encountered a stability issue with Tosca, but it was rectified.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability.

I would give technical support a rating of an eight out of 10.

We switched from Python for fast access of files.

The setup was straightforward.

The pricing of Tosca and HPE is high.

We evaluated SmartBear.

I prefer TDD with SpecFlow and Cucumber using a coded UI. These tools need to be integrated with Tosca to drive the TDD approach in automation.