OpenText Functional Testing and Tricentis Tosca both compete in the automation testing category. Tricentis Tosca appears to have the upper hand with its user-friendly, model-based, scriptless automation, making it accessible to non-technical users while maintaining a strong focus on risk-based testing.
Features: Tricentis Tosca excels with its model-based test automation, scriptless testing that requires no coding knowledge, and extensive support for over 35 technologies including web, mobile, and SAP. Additionally, its risk-based testing strategies and comprehensive test case design tools are highly valued. OpenText Functional Testing offers versatility across applications, with strong support for API testing, legacy systems, and a built-in object repository to ease object identification. It also provides comprehensive integration capabilities with both API and GUI components.
Room for Improvement: OpenText could enhance its coding language support and ease of use for non-technical users, and address pricing and support issues. Meanwhile, Tricentis Tosca needs better integration with non-Windows platforms, improved self-healing features, and enhanced reporting capabilities.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Functional Testing primarily supports on-premises deployment, catering to privacy-centric organizations, while its customer service is seen as needing faster response times. Tricentis Tosca offers flexibility with both on-premises and cloud deployment. It shares similar concerns over high costs and response times in technical support, but its deployment flexibility is appreciated.
Pricing and ROI: Both OpenText and Tricentis Tosca face criticism for high licensing costs. OpenText is valued for its solid ROI due to its extensive application support. In contrast, Tricentis Tosca's premium pricing is justified by its ease of use and rapid benefits realization, particularly in complex testing environments. The complexity of pricing and extra costs for advanced features in both tools should be considered by potential buyers.
Automation is done very fast, leading to improvements in the QA process and reducing the time needed for test automation.
The development time using UFT can be cut down into half as compared to coding from scratch.
We can easily achieve a return on investment in one, two, or three years.
