We performed a comparison between Micro Focus UFT One and Tricentis Tosca based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Tricentis Tosca seems to be a superior solution. All other things being more or less equal, our reviewers found that Micro Focus UFT One’s automation capabilities could be improved.
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"It's simple to set up."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis Tosca is it is a completely scriptless automation tool, which I liked a lot. They keep on continuously improving their tools, wherever we are facing any challenges they are able to provide a solution for it. It is easy to learn, everyone can easily read and understand what is happening with the scripts. Any business user or function tester can use the tool efficiently. This is a complete solution package."
"The automation engine is very strong, and it is very competitive in the market in terms of features. They develop a lot of features."
"The solution is script-less, so you don't need IT knowledge to use the solution in an operational way. This is the most valuable feature. It's also only one of two or three tools that can do good automation on SAP, and in my opinion, it's the best of those."
"This tool has test data management capability along with test management."
"The tool can be handled without any knowledge in parameterisation, especially the TestCaseDesign which makes the tool mighty and stable."
"This solution is very easy to learn and any non-programmer or manual tester, with little experience in automation, can pick it up quite easily."
"This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated."
"We have to automate thousands of test cases and complete end-to-end SAP on business processes. To manually execute these tasks, it would take us at least two months. By automating these tasks using Tosca, now it takes five to 10 days maximum. Tricentis Tosca is a codeless or scriptless automation tool."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Jumping to functions is supported from any Action/BPT Component code, but not from inside a function library where the target function exists in another library file. Workaround: Select search entire project for the function."
"The solution is expensive."
"Sometimes it appears that UFT takes a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected. Also, UFT uses a lot of memory. On this note, if you are running UFT on a virtual server I would add more RAM memory than the minimum requirements especially when using multiple add-ins. HP is pretty good about coming out with new patches to fix known issues and it pays for the user to check for new patches and updates on a regular basis."
"I would like to see more implementation of AI on the self-healing aspect. That would be like the next step."
"The user management could improve in Tricentis Tosca because it is confusing. It would be better to have it in one place. Having to add it to the cloud and to a specific project can be a mess."
"It requires some coding customization that requires expertise."
"I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories."
"The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows."
"Tricentis Tosca’s technical support could be improved."
"I would like a better user interface."
"There have been some setbacks because of upgrades. While Tosca has been around for a while, Tricentis has catered to smaller clients and I don't think they have done such a large, at-scale transition or transformation before or worked with a company like ours, which is doing an enterprise-wide transformation. When we go to their customer advisory-board meetings, upgrades have been an issue. They have been working a lot to make upgrades seamless."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 89 reviews while Tricentis Tosca is ranked 1st in Functional Testing Tools with 98 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Tricentis Tosca is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis Tosca writes "Does not require coding experience to use and comes with productivity and time-saving features ". OpenText UFT One is most compared with OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete, UiPath Test Suite and Ranorex Studio, whereas Tricentis Tosca is most compared with Katalon Studio, Worksoft Certify, Postman, Testim and SmartBear TestComplete. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Tricentis Tosca report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Mobile App Testing Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
Both products are very useful but it really depends on what you need to test and who is building the tests. We recently chose UFT One over Tosca in a specific use case where identifying images inside a map was needed. UFT uses both OCR and Image recognition where in Tosca you would have to identify specific pixels and those pixels could move depending on what device you were using.
From a test building perspective, I feel it is easier to build tests in UFT One than in Tosca. UFT One also gives you the ability to develop tests by either writing code or using the record and convert to code option (Allows developers and Business users to work together to build/update the same test).
If you can provide more info on what you are testing and your key drivers, I can try and give more info on what tool may be best.
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing.
MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well suited for CI integrations. We liked it, in particular, because it integrates greatly with other platforms, like .net, QC and Jenkins. An added advantage was the multi-device support.
One of the best advantages of MicroFocus is that it integrates with legacy web technologies and even Windows client applications. Finally, MicroFocus supports cross-browser testing. Regardless of many features, including a test combinations generator and insight recording, it is relatively easy to learn.
That being said, it doesn’t support multiple formats of reporting. For now, UFT only supports exporting reports in HTML or PDF. MicroFocus should allow exporting to Excel, CSV, XML, and other formats. There is a bit of performance degradation of the test environment when executing automation scripts continuously for a long time. The execution can be inconsistent sometimes, and scripting takes a long time. Another downside is the high licensing price.
Tricentis Tosca is an integrated testing solution that includes testing automation and case design approach, risk-based testing, test data management, and service virtualization. The best feature is its versatility in helping both web and desktop applications. It is very reliable and stable. Another great feature is that you can reuse test cases.
The platform supports multiple technologies and devices. It is truly end-to-end. Because it is scriptless, anyone can learn to use it.
As much as we like it, there are downsides to Tosca, too. The price is one of them. It runs a bit expensive, but it is worth it. The test design section is complicated to learn, and the UI takes time to get used to.
Conclusions
Tosca is a better solution in terms of usability and versatility. MicroFocus is better for organizations with legacy web applications.