Tricentis Tosca Reviews

There are two main use cases of Tosca. It is typically used for test automation, which is its main use case. Another use case is the test case design, which is around modeling an application from a business perspective. 

The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features. 

It is very expensive as compared to other tools that we have in the market. Its price is the main challenge because of which it is sometimes hard to sell Tosca because customers don't have that kind of budget.

Their license management should be improved. One of our customers is a global customer. They want to use one licensed server and then split the licenses based on the different users of the different business units, but currently, there is only one license server that everybody can access. There is no control, and that's why sometimes congestion can happen. It is good for Tosca because they can say, "Hey, your license count is overrun. So, you get more licenses or buy more licenses," but from a customer's point of view, this is really bad because they don't know exactly what usage is happening against each business unit because they can't group them. That's a big problem. So, for each group, they have to clear different license servers in different VMs. That's definitely a key area of improvement and a major challenge I have faced. They could also provide short-term licenses, such as three-month or four-month consumption licenses.

In terms of the overall architecture, we need to have something light weighted rather than so heavy. If we have something light-weighted, it would definitely be easily adaptable for any customer. In terms of containerization, it is very hard to properly containerize Tosca. They can think around the architecture and simplify things, but to be fair to them, the product has grown organically, and it has always grown based on feature requests. Everybody has jumped in and provided feedback to them to develop new features every now and then. They always have had a busy pipeline, which I understand, but it has been a long need from a customer point of view to have a simplified architecture. They need to simplify their architecture, which they seem to be doing.

Reporting has been the biggest challenge for a long time. There are quite a lot of third-party products, but there is no proper integration. Based on what I remember when I last spoke to them, they are working on a cloud platform, and they want to re-platform everything. I'm guessing they are addressing these issues in that platform.

I've tried Vision AI that they have created, but it isn't there yet. They have oversold it. It looks promising, and in the next few years, hopefully, it will become very good.

Their support can also be improved.

I have been using this solution for almost eight years.

It seems stable. It has improved over the years. I've worked with it from version 9.1 to version 15. Based on what I've seen in the past, its performance is much better now.

It is scalable because there is no coding, but from an architecture and infrastructure perspective, it is very hard. So, scalability is a problem because the architecture is heavy.

Their support is okay. If you get the right people, then it is awesome because they will jump into a call and show you what needs to be done. They will help you, but getting that right person is a big challenge. 

When you log a ticket, you get a response, which is a very standard response, and they don't follow up with you. If someone is not following up, that ticket stays there for long. So, the problem is around the management of the people there. I have seen support from other companies as well, and Tricentis can improve from the support perspective.

It is simple. The only challenge is the high infrastructure cost associated with it. Sometimes people underestimate it. It's not a true SaaS solution. Based on the discussions I had, they were moving towards SaaS, and that's the future, but at this point, it's a very heavy solution that is dependent on the on-premise infrastructure, but the installation is easy. You can do it via GUI and you can do it unattended through the command line. So, installation-wise, I haven't faced many issues. They are more around the configurations and the actual infrastructure. 

We are one of the top partners of Tricentis, and we do the implementation. 

In terms of maintenance, Tosca is easier to maintain than other solutions such as Selenium and any open-source tool. The only challenge is the infrastructure cost. You have to have that infrastructure always up and running. If you are setting up this infrastructure on the cloud, utilization becomes a big challenge, specifically when you want to run multiple test cases on multiple machines. You have to set up all these agent machines, which is also a problem with UiPath. These are good tools, but they are not good in terms of future infrastructure cloud readiness. If I want to install things, there should be flexibility for ramping down and up based on the demand. This is something that none of these tools have at this point. Selenium probably has this because it is open-source, and you can create your own framework on top of it to add those features, but with Tosca and UiPath, because these technologies and features are controlled by the company, you can't add those features, and if you don't have those features, it becomes a big dependency and a problem.

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 should be on a monthly basis versus on a yearly basis. In today's world, the DevOps teams are decentralized, and the budget is decentralized. A project manager doesn't have a budget for the entire enterprise. He only has the budget for his project or for two or three testers. They need to deliver certain features with two or three testers. If they have to use Tricentis Tosca, it is very hard because Tricentis will force you to get a one-year license because, for them, recurring revenue is important. Even though they claim to be a continuous testing leader, in the real DevOps world, they have struggled to sell because of this factor. When the teams are small, they need flexibility, and if you don't give flexibility around license, it is very hard.

In terms of licensing, typically, we have concurrent users. You buy the license, and that license can be installed on a server and anybody can use it. If you use it, that license gets checked out by your name, and nobody else would be able to use it. It is based on concurrent users, rather than named users, which is good. 

Nowadays, everybody is trying to copy Tricentis Tosca because it is a leader in this space. It is the leader as per Gartner, Forrester, and PeerSpot. Every tool has its pros and cons. One particular product that I liked was Provar, which is specifically for Salesforce. They really went into the code to track any changes. Apart from that, open-source solutions are its biggest competitors. I've seen a lot of open-source frameworks that are better than Tosca and have the flexibility on the containerization side and the reporting side, but from the commercial tool perspective, Tosca is a leader in every aspect. I haven't seen any other tool that has a better capability than Tosca. The automation engine is pretty strong in Tosca.

If you have a manual testing background, it is much easier to adapt to Tosca, but if you're coming from a coding background, you will have to unlearn and think from a manual tester's perspective and work with Tosca. There is a learning curve. So, you need to go through that learning curve, and you should be ready for that. It isn't very complicated, but you definitely need to spend some time. You would need at least two to three months. Their training is not that great. It gives you a basic idea, but it doesn't give you project-related ideas. You really need to work on real-time projects to actually understand the value of the tool.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. There are certain things that they can improve. Apart from those, it is pretty good.

Tricentis Tosca is a tool used for system and application testing.

The advantage of using Tricentis Tosca is that we can get started with automation without much investment on solution development, with it following a keyword-driven approach. We have the actions and verifications readily available, so you can get started on the Tricentis Tosca conversion from the first day of training, and this is the advantage we have observed from the tool.

I also like that it is a simple tool, in terms of system testing, though there are other tools now that are good competitors for Tricentis Tosca, e.g. Katalon Studio.

A disadvantage of Tricentis Tosca is that you have to customize it according to your need, during the early stages of the software. Sometimes this happens when you're not on the system testing phase, but you're very close to development, e.g. more on the upstream testing, before system testing, unit testing, etc.

For example, you have to inject something as a precondition to the solution on the test, so you have to do some presetting, you have to write some code to it, and you have to make some conditions for upstream testing. Tricentis Tosca is not recommended in that stage, but it's definitely better for system testing, with it being keyword-driven and you have the keywords readily available, especially if you compare it with other tools such as Micro Focus and TestComplete.

Though I'm not currently working with Tricentis Tosca, e.g. I don't have a project utilizing the solution, I've had experience with it in the past year.

We evaluated Micro Focus, TestComplete, and Katalon Studio.

I am in the QA side, and I have almost 20 years of experience in QA. I'm doing all the automations. My experience with commercial tools are customer specific, e.g. if the customer wants to use a specific tool. I have experience on object-based tools and other types, on the commercial side. We use OneSource libraries and the custom frameworks, so that's where I have more experience, compared to commercial tools.

I don't have any current projects with Tricentis Tosca, but my company has a partnership with Tricentis. I'm not in the delivery team, e.g. I'm on the CoE team. Our application testing is more on digitally managing application drivers, so our scope on application testing is minimal. However, everyone's going digital nowadays, e.g. there's the remote setting and other things to come, so we utilize browser-based solutions, testing, mobile, etc.

I'm part of the CoE team where our work involves solutioning, initial designs, and choosing the right tools. We don't get into the product and use the same tool for a long time, in particular, we do a POC. With Tricentis Tosca, we have asked our teams to do a POC using it, because there is nothing more important than learning the tool, so that it can be easily understandable. Based on customer demand, we have done a few POCs for the tool, so our team isn't really involved in the full lifecycle of a project.

Katalon Studio is very similar to Tricentis Tosca, and price-wise, it's lower. This is why I don't compare Tricentis Tosca with TestComplete. I compare the tool with Katalon Studio, which is an open source robot that's similar to Tricentis Tosca, but because it's a free rule, you cannot have everything from it when compared to Tricentis Tosca.

My experience or my inputs on what to add to this solution, or what I'd like to see from it in the next release, would not be great, because our team is not into applications that much. Our scope of testing the applications is minimal. We are more into the panel-based devices and smart devices, e.g. POS (point of sale) or Point of Care devices in the medical field, or input devices, aeronautical flight attendance panels, etc. Those are the areas we are involved in, so they are purely embedded domains.

I'm giving Tricentis Tosca an eight out of ten rating.

Automating SAP and NON SAP applications 

Reduced Integration testing time effectively from 2 weeks to 1 day for CRM application.

With code free automation concept, it's easy to automate and maintain test scripts. Many of my team members shifted over the past two years, and upskilling and knowledge transition was never a problem. 

In today's agile and cloud world when solution and functionality are not stable, automation scripts' maintenance was not a big issue. Looking at the amount of rework and maintenance activity that we had done for our scripts, it might have been a nightmare with some other scripting tool.

They can make it more stable. I have used this tool for SAP applications. Tricentis's alliance with SAP mostly worked fine, but there were very few glitches. However, we got the required support from the Tricentis team.

They are coming up with their new versions and upgrades with respect to how the Tricentis systems as cloud applications are updated, and it would be good if they have a robust accelerator pack.

I have used this solution for more than one and a half years.

I scaled it up a few months ago, and it was not a smooth process.

I have worked on QTP/UFT and  SAP TAO for SAP automation. Considering no-code automation, easy maintenance, and integration capabilities with 150 + applications, I selected TOSCA for an automation solution.

Its initial setup is not very complex and needs the required skills/knowledge. It also depends on the environment. It is good to have a TOSCA expert in your team to support integration activities.

We engaged the SI partner for Tosca set up and automation.

We did not fully utilize its integration with the test management tool, but it was working fine. 

My recommendation would be to go through Tricentis documentation and the best practices that they are proposing. Wherever required, set up a knowledge-sharing session with Tricentis. 

We use Tricentis Tosca for a workflow system and for SAP.

It works fine for regression tests on the workflow system. Old scripts still work fine in browser based application. Saved and still saves us a lot of time.

SAP embedded is quite an issue. When IE was discontinued we didn't manage to get it working with msedgedriver. The support of Tricentis is below expectation for all the money we spend on them.

Version 2023.2 has a number of issues which they don't fix until the next major release (Not telling when). Badly documentated new settings.

The most valuable features of Tricentis Tosca was the ease of use, but it is getting more and more difficult to use. It is almost impossible to use Tosca without programming knowledge. 

The way of creating modules is basically simple. But when you have the module it is trial and error method on settings to get them working in a testcase.

Tricentis Tosca could improve on the ease of use. There is a steep learning curve. The reporting section could be better and some of the new features could be simplified. Additionally, the user management of the client and the server are confusing. There should not be two.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately eight years.

Tricentis Tosca is stable. We have a few scripts that are running for a while now and there have not been any problems.

The scalability of Tricentis Tosca is good. We can add more users which is easy to do.

We have approximately five people who use the solution in my company.

The support from Tricentis Tosca is getting less good. When I have a problem I receive an answer. However, it is not always the answer that helps me to go on.

I rate the support from Tricentis Tosca a three out of five.

Neutral

I have not used a similar solution prior to Tricentis Tosca.

The initial setup of Tricentis Tosca was complex because of the applications we had.

I rate the initial setup of Tricentis Tosca a four out of five.

We did the implementation of Tricentis Tosca in-house but we had the help from an experienced hired team.

If we did not have Tricentis Tosca we would have to use three more testers to do everything manually. The solution has helped our company.

The price of Tricentis Tosca is approximately Є10,000 for one license. It used to be much cheaper, but they changed their license structure. It used to be a structure where if you bought a license you would receive one year of free support and maintenance. Now they only have a yearly license, and that is expensive. 

The price of the solution does not include all features available. If you need a BI solution or API testing, then you have to pay extra.

I rate the price of Tricentis Tosca a two out of five.

We did evaluate other options for stepping over to another testtool because of the current pricing and the poor support.

I would recommend this solution for browser testing because it's stable, and you can test a lot with it. It has a good user interface for testing and when managing you don't have to do a record all the time. It can be easy to maintain and use scripts.
For SAP and embedded browser apps it doesn't work fine.

Also it is not suitable anymore for users without a technical background.

Tricentis is a growing organization and Tosca is not holding the standards it used to have.

I rate Tricentis Tosca a six out of ten.

We use Tricentis Tosca to test workflows. 

I like how the modules are set up, particularly how you can use the screens you're automating. This automation helps save both time and money because we use less test capacity regarding personnel.

You can scan an entire browser or application window and define all the controls you want to steer, which you can reuse. In other tools, you have to define each control individually, so this feature in Tricentis Tosca is quite nice.

Product quality has declined as it grows, and its updates aren't without fault. The process of resolving problems has slowed, and as it expands into other areas like NeoLoad and other testing tools, the product becomes more complicated. It used to be a small firm with a clear goal, but as it grows, the quality has been affected.

I have been working with the product for eight years. 

I am not satisfied with the tool's technical support. Sometimes, they provide a hint when contacting support, and we figure out the solution ourselves. There are instances where they acknowledge an issue but say they won't solve it until the next release, which might be over half a year away. The response time is quick, but the support is not always very helpful.

Neutral

The tool is expensive. It has become overpriced, especially after Tricentis Tosca grew as a company. Initially, we bought a license with an annual support fee, which wasn't too expensive. However, they changed the model, and now we have to purchase a license yearly, which has become quite costly.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. 

The solution has streamlined the regression testing process by integrating with Solution Manager.

The most valuable feature is automating regression testing scripts linked with Solution Manager. This functionality supports our current requirement for automated testing without utilizing other features like LiveCompare.

One major area for the product's improvement is simplifying the synchronization process of test cases between Tricentis Tosca and Solution Manager. It has been a challenge and could be streamlined to enhance user experience.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for approximately six months.

The product is stable. 

The platform is scalable. 

The technical support services are generally good, though there are areas for improvement regarding response time and overall competence.

The initial setup was straightforward. However, synchronization of scripts from Solution Manager to Tosca was a critical part that required careful handling.

Our in-house team handled the implementation. 

I rate the platform an eight out of ten. 

We needed a testing tool that could be used for automating SAP, so that was our use case for Tricentis Tosca, and amongst the candidates we tested, the solution suited us well.

To me, what stands out the most about Tricentis Tosca is that even if I'm not a technical tester, I could pick up on how to use it very quickly because of the mechanisms of the tool, for example, its scanning mechanism. I'm not so technical, but I'm able to maneuver through Tricentis Tosca and derive capability. It's a user-friendly tool. It's not very complex.

In terms of areas for improvement, Tricentis has a variety of tools, even its test management tool called qTest. Tricentis Tosca does have integration with different Tricentis tools, but the integration is geared towards a larger organization perspective. For very small organizations that have minimal licenses, the integration needs to be improvised. For example, I belong to a smaller organization that has only one license, so the capability that the tool provides for integration isn't sufficient because my company needs to have separate workspaces. When Tricentis Tosca is going to be running, it is going to use that license, but my company wants another separate workspace to record, relay, and test. This is what my team has been struggling with, and the mechanism is probably there, but that needs more time and investigation, so I can't say that I'm one hundred percent certain that Tricentis Tosca, in terms of integration for a smaller organization is insufficient.

Another area for improvement is that Tricentis Tosca is currently just a Windows-based tool which affects the market because nowadays, Windows isn't the only operating system, for example, there's also Apple or IOS that's moving much faster than Windows.

Pricing for Tricentis Tosca could be improved as well because it's very expensive.

Making Tricentis Tosca available on other operating systems is what I'd like to see in the next version of the tool. That would be beneficial. From what I've heard, you should never have the Tricentis Tosca server installed on a VM, but my company has it running on a VM and so far, there hasn't been any issue except for the VM rebooting, though I'm not sure at all if it had anything to do with having the server on the VM, or some other reasons.

I've been using Tricentis Tosca for almost two years now.

Tricentis Tosca is a very stable product, and I don't have any complaints about the tool, stability-wise.

Scaling up Tricentis Tosca would be an issue for us because of the licensing. As it's an extremely expensive product and we're a smaller organization, we don't need that many licenses, but sometimes it would be great if we could have two licenses because there are other people in the company who were trained and certified to use Tricentis Tosca. The product does provide a multi-user workspace, but we only have one license currently, so only one execution is possible at a time.

I've contacted the technical support for Tricentis Tosca. There's a support website where you can directly raise incidents with the support team and follow up. The support team is very knowledgeable about the product, though the only downside is the response time because sometimes the response isn't timely, but whenever there is any kind of response, support is very detailed and knows the product well. On a scale of one to five, with one being the worst and five being the best, technical support for Tricentis Tosca is five out of five. It's really good.

I have not tested any other SAP-related testing tools. The only tool I tested hands-on was Tricentis Tosca, and it suited the needs of my company, so it's the product we're using.

Tricentis Tosca was set up by the infrastructure team, so I don't have information on whether the initial setup was extremely straightforward or not, but I do know that there was no issue with getting the tool set up. My company has a cloud license and an on-premises license, so there are various setup options available for Tricentis Tosca.

We implemented Tricentis Tosca through our in-house team.

As for the licensing cost for Tricentis Tosca, I'm not one hundred percent sure how much it is, but I know that it's an expensive product. I wouldn't be able to rate Tricentis Tosca in terms of pricing because I don't have information on the prices of other products tested by my organization. My team tested Worksoft and that was also an expensive tool.

Few tools provide the capability to test SAP automation tools, and the majority of the products are more suitable for a larger enterprise and have higher pricing, but if you're a very technical tester, there are other tools you could utilize. Technically skilled people and technical automation testers may be able to use open source tools, but for the not-so-technical testers, only a few SAP-related tools are available, but from what I've heard, they're priced on the higher side. I won't be able to advise if Tricentis Tosca is more expensive than its competitors because I don't have pricing information for any of those tools.

My company uses Tricentis Tosca.

My advice to people looking into implementing the tool is that it's great to use, but you need to be more hands-on. Tricentis has certifications available, so the more you advance your skillset and get yourself certified, you'll learn all the mechanisms of how Tricentis Tosca can be used. So far, the tool ticked most of the boxes based on my company's needs.

I'm rating Tricentis Tosca nine out of ten. I didn't give it a perfect score because it's currently based on Windows only, and its cost is high but other than those two cons, everything has been great about the product.

My company is just a user. It has no partnership with Tricentis Tosca.

We use it to automate testing. In terms of the version, we're up to date. We're on the latest version. 

It speeds up automation processes within testing.

The use of automation is most valuable.

There should be ease of data manipulation within automation test cases.

There should be better testing in the ETL, warehouse, or big data environment. They need to look at the speed of that and how they do that type of testing.

There should be better support. We should be able to speak to somebody.

I have been using this solution for six months.

The product is stable, but it can be a little slow, but that's a consequence of the fact that you're able to automate very quickly.

If you buy more licenses, it's scalable. 

We just have a single instance, and we have multiple users with different projects.

Their technical support is fairly good, but it's all done through email, which is a little difficult.

I've used a lot of different automation tools. I'm a contractor. I go into different organizations. So, I didn't really switch. This company was using it.

It is fairly easy. The worst thing about it is grabbing a license every time you log in. That takes a little bit of time.

The deployment duration depends on whether you use the on-premise version or cloud version. It takes a few hours for the on-premise version.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we just implemented the tool, did the training, and then started moving testing over to the tool.

We did it ourselves. We had just one person for the deployment.

We have seen an ROI because we are able to automate test scripts much quicker.

It is expensive. There is also the training cost, but it does speed up the process. So, you get a return on investment.

I evaluated the freeware tools.

When reviewing the tool, you should make sure that any automation you've already got integrates fully with the Tosca tool. That's the biggest thing. Migration of any current automation is potentially a really difficult process.

I'd give it an eight out of ten.