Tricentis Tosca Reviews

We primarily use this solution in a mixed environment having web and desktop applications, integrating with each other and over an API Gateway. API based and Financial Services portal testing created using modern technology using C# and ReactJS.

- Brought a good environment of test automation

- Allowed a significant increase in Continuous Integration

- Great User Interface and ease of checking all your artifacts of Testing.

- Makes optimal use of Model-based Test practice in getting Object-references from the application.

- Script-less, so less maintenance headache for non-technical users also.

- Drag and drop functionality to create and re-use your Test Cases

- Excellent re-use of Excel functionality for formulas and functions.

- Conditions which let the test case branch off from the Template. Helps work out different scenarios for data.

- Has been tried out on SAP, Oracle Apps, and IBM COGNOS BI applications. With a few tweaks works well with these applications.

- IF and LOOP statements introduced with the latest version.

- Improved performance of Web-Based Tests. WHILE LOOP and IF made better and more responsive with added error recovery options.

- Intuitive based options available, along with a rudimentary record and play functionality.

- Next version will even have the visualization tools required to see the interconnections between the TCD and the Test Cases, along with the workflow in the TCD and Tests.

- New and improved visualization for multiple browsers and a totally new Wizard with TBox out of Box support has been added to the (v9.2) of TOSCA Commander.

- Access to Business Intelligence (BI) features of comparing a DB to another one, also have been added as plugins.

- Access to an Analytical Engine to view and get reports from the Test Runs.

- Version 13 has also brought in BI testing and improvements on SAP Test scenarios

- Upgrades to the newer version if extra Add-ins are installed sometimes causes weird issues.

- Needs a UI to be open and present when running the tests. Cannot visit the DOM like in Selenium.

- Needs a UI to visualize the test case development.

I have used it for the past nine years.

None seen as such, except it has a reliance on the Network for Licenses. If the network is lost, then the license will expire and crash/close the application.

The scalability depends on the Licensing model you take up.

Customer Service:

Excellent almost 16x5 service with issue resolution within a given 24-hour time frame.

Technical Support:

- Great Customer Support, technical from the first step.

I have been using HP QTP and Selenium for Test Automation. Switch was mainly due to Team constraints and management wanting to try a new tool which is easier for the Business Analysts also to collaborate with.

Setup is simple but requires learning of the tool and how it does things before you can optimally use it.

We had an in-house implementation.

We have seen an exceptionally good ROI, as we reduced the number of Tests from 4000 to around 89 scenario's which can be run in an automated manner with additional data (so in actuality we have around 1.4M tests, which can theoretically be run without human intervention). We have a full-stack CI pipeline for running these along with JIRA (requirement gathering and test results per Story), to the final TeamCity run for each check-in to the Dev branch.

Pricing is steep if you go for the premium model. My advice would be to buy a mix of licenses, depending on the need. The Tricentis Sales are rather good at helping you with this, once you give the intent to buy. They are not just shoving you the highest premium toy/license.

I evaluated TestComplete, HP UFT ALM, Selenium / SpecFlow / Cucumber.

Take the online training on Udemy before you confirm the intent to buy it.

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. 

My primary use case for Tricentis Tosca is SAP testing.

I'm using Tricentis Tosca as part of test automation, so it reduces the test execution time, and this has improved our organization. This is the main advantage of the tool, compared to doing it manually.

All the features available now in Tricentis Tosca are valuable.

One thing to improve in Tricentis Tosca is that it's not compatible with Excel based forms. Another area for improvement is that the tool is not compatible with OpenText applications. OpenText is a company which provides multiple applications.

There's also an issue with the support for Tricentis Tosca. If they don't provide support within a faster timeframe, then you will wait for the solution, and you'll lose, e.g. whatever you're gaining from the tool, you'll lose, because of the delayed support.

Tricentis Tosca also needs some improvement, and this is why my rating for it is only eight out of ten, e.g. it needs to have more compatibility to be able to take advantage of its multiple features.

The tool also supports on-premises deployment only, and it needs to elevate to cloud deployment. It should be easily accessible by anyone, and this is currently not the case. Other competitor tools, or most of the competitor tools, have moved to cloud, except Tricentis Tosca.

The licensing cost for the tool also needs improvement.

If these changes were to be made, then I could give Tricentis Tosca the perfect score: 10 out of 10.

I've been using Tricentis Tosca for six years.

The stability and reliability of Tricentis Tosca is just 60% for me.

We were able to contact technical support for Tricentis Tosca, and they gave us a delayed response. In order to get our problem solved, we had to wait for one month.

The initial setup for Tricentis Tosca was a mix of both straightforward and complex. If you are using just one component, the setup was straightforward, if you wanted to integrate the tool with the multiple components, then the setup becomes complex.

The installation was standard in terms of how long it took to complete, e.g. one week. If there was integration, it could be completed in three weeks.

I've seen a return on investment from the tool, but only when it was used long term, e.g. in more than three years time.

The licensing cost for Tricentis Tosca is expensive. It has multiple features, but to use all of its features you have to pay for additional licenses.

Tricentis Tosca is a testing tool, so we can implement it in any software projects.

The tool is only applicable for on-premises deployment. Currently, it's not possible to deploy it via public or private cloud.

I'm using version 15 of Tricentis Tosca.

I did the deployment of the tool myself, and didn't use an integrator, reseller, or consultant. One person can deploy Tricentis Tosca.

We have 1000+ people in our environment who are using the tool.

Product-wise, I'm rating Tricentis Tosca eight out of ten. Service or support-wise, my rating for it is six out of ten.

We use this solution for risk-based testing in conjunction with test optimization and test automation.

Our testing landscape ranges from web applications to mobile applications to mainframe to PDF. The tool takes care of most of the testing requirements with relatively minimal effort.

Tricentis Tosca has evolved from being a functional test automation tool to becoming a Continuous Testing platform. It has helped teams within our organization become more aware of the testing requirements in terms of risk and priority. 

It has also enabled teams to optimize risk coverage and enabled them to test more wisely.

Risk-based testing, test optimization, and support for over one hundred technologies are some of the most important capabilities of the platform. Many may argue that the same can be achieved by other tools as well, but not all within the same platform. The ease of maintainability is also a differentiating factor.

Even though the platform has been continuously evolving, there is room for improvement. For example:

• Test reporting hasn't been as impressive as the other components of this platform.
• Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation.

This is a very stable solution.

This solution is easily scalable.

I would say that they have decent support. They can be contacted via live chat, email, and online incident forms.

I was using Selenium WebDriver a few years ago. 

I switched to Tricentis Tosca because of its methodology and support for more than one hundred technologies.

The initial setup is straightforward, provided that the consultants from the company are involved.

We used a mix of both in-house staff and consultants for our implementation.

Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked.

I evaluated other solutions including both Selenium and QTP.

For organizations who want to aim for a unified continuous testing platform, and are willing to pay for it, Tricentis Tosca can be a decent investment.

I use the solution for software validation.

The product's database capacity should be increased. The product has certain shortcomings in cloud storage. From an improvement perspective, cloud storage must offer more features.

I have been using Tricentis Tosca for a year. I am a user of the solution.

The product is not very stable when used with cloud storage. It is very hard to load the screen, making it difficult to use the tool in cloud storage.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

My whole organization uses the product.

The product is used every day.

There was another product I had experience with in my previous organization.

I rate the product's initial setup phase a seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is easy and ten is difficult.

The solution is deployed on the cloud model.

The solution can be deployed in a few hours.

Speaking about the feature of the product that has the largest impact on our company's testing process, I would say that I use Selenium to take care of the coding part. In Tricentis Tosca, we can't use Git code, considering the user-based experience and UI for the testing process.

Speaking about the codeless test creation feature in Tricentis Tosca, I would say that in some of the software where the quality assurance team does the verification, Selenium is used by quality analysts. In Selenium, we used to write the codes to check basic stuff. In Tricentis Tosca, we don't have to write any scripts.

Integrating the product into my company's CI/CD pipeline affected the release cycles in a good way.

For beginners, the product is good, especially for those who are interested in the quality side of software testing.

Considering the emerging trends in the automation space, I would say that Tricentis Tosca is a good software.

I rate the tool a seven and a half out of ten.

We are using the solution on cloud. We have the updated version. Each time a new version is released, we already have it. I'm not sure what version we're on right now.

We have teams of around 5 to 10 people for different projects that are using this tool.

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 technology stack that they have now is bigger than when it started. That gives us more flexibility on aligning to one single tool to get automation from different technologies in one test scenario. Instead of dividing them and splitting them into different parts, we can go from end to end with this tool.

I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step.

I have been using Tricentis for a couple of years.

Technical support is fine. We get a very quick response from them.

We have this as a service, so the initial setup is not that complex. It's already there, and we can plug in and start doing our automation. But last year, we started with a project from scratch, and we needed some support from Tricentis itself. It wasn't complex, but it required some time to get the tool to the point where we could start using it. It took about four weeks.

There is an annual cost for Tricentis.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. 

Something that people should probably be looking at is how technical their team is and whether or not they can do coding. If they are more on the business side where they know all the different flows of the business cases or scenarios, that would be a very good way to use the tool because technical expertise is not required. You should have a couple of resources, but it's not necessary to have  high technical skills.

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.