Likelihood to Recommend It is best suited for implementing the automated test cases in a human readable form so it's easy for non-technical members of the team and stakeholders to understand the test cases, features and the functionalities of the application. Automation of Integration tests and End to End tests are good use case. It is less appropriate or situations where the focus is only on the writing and maintenance of unit tests.
Read full review Tricentis Tosca is well suited for packaged applications like SAP,
Salesforce , Workday, etc. It also works well with API testing and Web UI testing. Tosca is highly suited for Projects which require a high level of collaboration between team members across different locations. It's less suited for mobile automation, Reporting, and test scenarios with high input data.
Read full review Pros Versatility to be used in combination with different kinds of automated testing like automated performance testing, API testing, UI testing etc. I use JavaScript, Selenium, C#, email testing libraries, database testing libraries in combination with BDD with SpecFlow. I am able to use all these with SpecFlow to make my automation framework to be able to automate any kind of automated testing. It provides different widely used runner options like NUnit, XUnit etc. Before I started to work on establishing proper test automation in my workplace, the previous automation framework (non-BDD based) as well as unit tests used NUnit runner. The transition to using BDD was smooth because we could use the same runner and there were no compatibility issues. The auto-complete feature is good. I use it with Visual Studio as well as Rider and I don't have to recall the entire Gherkin statements. I just type a few words and the entire Gherkin statement implemented in framework is auto-suggested by SpecFlow. It saves time and context switching. Read full review It's one stop shop for all your test automation needs like - api layer, ui layer, load testing, mobile automation. It has excellent support for CI/CD and Devops environment which makes it very modern but much needed solution It can run in cross browser and cross devices with same test script and again saves a lot of time. Excellent results and dashboards gives nice view into results. Read full review Cons SpecFlow does not accepts optional input variables in the methods defined during Gherkin statement implementation. Cucumber supports optional input variables in the methods defined during Gherkin statement implementation. The tests identified while using SpecFlow with NUnit removes all white spaces in the scenario names. It makes the tests less readable. If the white spaces are not auto-removed, it would be much better for readability as well as their actual identification in the repository. Read full review It does have a steep learning curve, A tool is often perceived capable of doing only what its user is able to achieve in accomplishing while using it. For this reason, its very necessary if for the team at Tricentis to continue doing the great work they are doing to train early adopters of this fantastic tool. Read full review Likelihood to Renew 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
Read full review Usability It can be a challenge for new users who have never used an automation tool. For example, it is hard to understand the layout of the screen and where to find how to update the data. The interface can be overwhelming at first.
Read full review Support Rating 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
Read full review Alternatives Considered SpecFlow is .Net based which supports C#. Behave is Python based. Cucumber is Java based.
Ghost Inspector is no-code based but provides very limited testing features. We wanted to implement BDD so we rued out using
Ghost Inspector . Most of the developers in my team are C# experts so it was decided for everyone's comfort to go for SpecFlow rather than Behave or Cucumber. It's import to have technical experts in the language of the automation framework because there are many situations where the solutions to the test automation needs are not straightforward and implementing those requires expertise in the related programming language.
Read full review 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
Read full review Return on Investment Everyone stays on the same page regarding the behavior of existing functionalities whether it be technical or non-technical individuals. So there is less need for multiple people to get involved which saves time and thus money. Reusing the same code through the implemented Gherkin statement saves test automation time and thus reduces cost. We combine SpecFlow with other opensource testing technologies to make our automation framework more versatile which further saves costs for us. Read full review After implementing Tosca we were able to reduce the cycle time that was spent on executing regression tests manually. I would say TOSCA was able to reduce close to 30% of the time that was spent for executing test cases manually. Read full review ScreenShots Tricentis Tosca Screenshots