A cross-browser testing tool, playwright supports all modern rendering engines including Chromium, WebKit, and Firefox. Users can test on Windows, Linux, and macOS, locally or on CI, headless or headed. It is also cross-language, so that the Playwright API can be used in TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, .NET, Java. Test Mobile Web. Native mobile emulation of Google Chrome for Android and Mobile Safari. The same rendering engine works on the Desktop and in the Cloud. Playright…
$0
Tricentis Tosca
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Tricentis Tosca provides an approach to test
automation that is AI-powered, codeless, and end-to-end so it can test
everything in a complex IT landscape, to ensure business processes
work flawlessly no matter where changes occurs.
Its 160+ technology support helps users test everything at
the UI, API and data layer, including virtually any enterprise, custom,
homegrown and mobile application.
With its model-based approach, Tosca enables business,
QA and IT teams to…
Playwright is very well suited for any kind of frontend QA regression testing. It's perfect for ensuring that important features that are not often updated remain fully functional across updates or releases. It is not well suited for testing a feature that requires more developer updates before it is ready for end users. Playwright tests are not always simple to maintain if frequent updates are required to keep them relevant. Playwright can be used for API or database assertions as well, but it's not necessarily best suited for those scenarios. It does perform well enough to consider that use case for simplicity if Playwright is already relevant for any frontend QA regression tests that are needed.
For projects having huge set of test cases to be automated can be accommodated by Tricentis Tosca with proper folder structure and best practices implementations. Tosca will be less appropriate for organizations where the number of automation scripts are limited with hardly any scope of increasing the script count or the cost of automation will be more than the cost of having manual resources as Tosca is a licensed tool.
Documentation - struggled multiple times with features not explained very well, or not explained at all
The only support is on Tricentis Forums, where, sometimes, based on 'luck' - you will open a support case, and wait few days until you get the chance to speak with someone from Tricentis and show case your issue
We aim to renew Tosca for our organization. What we lose in license cost is gained by having employee that do not need programming background. We also recoup a lot of the cost on the rapidity of automation. Only the support we might not use as much. I believe Tosca is here to stay at our organization
I find Playwright very intuitive and generally do not have any trouble using it on a daily basis. However, I do have coworkers with more limited experience in software who have struggled immensely in learning to use Playwright properly. Playwright is very well documented which helps if you plan to use AI to help you write any test automation (which I generally don't recommend, but is an option).
I rated Tosca a 10/10 because it is one of the easiest enterprise automation tools to use across multiple technologies, especially for SAP, Web, API, Desktop, and database testing. Unlike script-based tools, Tosca’s model-based testing (MBT) approach makes test creation fast, simple, and stable—even for large, complex applications.
Tricentis team was very supportive. Support is expensive but they helped us at many level. Setting up timeline, implementation, precise questions on automation challenges. We had an account manager and technical people we could as to talk to. Support was generally timely and helping. They often proposed to come on site to help us which would cost more but could be helpful
It would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterif the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is better
okIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is betterIt would be better if the support is better
We selected Playwright over the rest for several reasons. The learning curve is faster, making it easier for our team to get up to speed quickly. The setup is pretty straithtforwared, minimal configurartion needed and a great example included in the configuration which includes all the basics to start writing using that spec as a placeholder. Compared to Cypress, Playwright support multiple browsers out of the box, giving us broader testing coverage. Appium is great for mobile testing, but extremely slow.
Tricentis Tosca is codeless and therefore easier to use. It's a great tool for people that would start doing automation and have no coding background. It seems like it has the same capabilities as other test automation suites but I felt it lacked a bit of capabilities on the test management suite such as defects test suites organizations etc
It really had a very good impact on our ROI. We were able to automate most of the apps and layers with in it and get a very short execution time which led to increased releases with in short span of time.
Time to market really improved and efficiency of developing scripts was not too bad.
With built in test dashboards, it was easy to pull metrics and share the insights with management.
