We performed a comparison between Adaptavist Test Management for Jira and Tricentis qTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools."The program is very stable and scalable."
"You can group test cases together and track the execution of them."
"We don't use technical support. We have an office in Austria that provides us with solutions. Also, this solution is pretty simple and user-friendly. We don't really need help with it."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most important feature which I like in qTest manager is the user-friendliness, especially the tabs. Since I'm the admin, I use the configuration field settings and allocate the use cases to the different QA people. It is not difficult, as a QA person, for me to understand what is happening behind the scenes."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed..."
"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself."
"I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location."
"Lacking visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, pie charts, bar charts and histograms."
"They should work on integrating the solution with AI."
"I don't like that you need to use a lot of tabs. One test case takes 15-20 minutes and on Zephyr is take about 5-10 minutes."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"I wouldn't say a lot of good things about Insights, but that's primarily because, with so many test cases, it is incredibly slow for us. We generally don't use it because of that."
"I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use. ALM's... Defects Module is really robust. You can actually walk through each defect by just clicking an arrow... But with the qTest Defects module you can't do that. You have to run a query. You're pretty much just querying a database. It's not really a module, or at least a robust module. Everything is very manual."
"Reporting shouldn't be so difficult. I shouldn't have to write so many queries to get the data I'm looking for, for a set of metrics about how many releases we had. I still have to break those spreadsheets out of there to get the data I need."
"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users."
"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."
More Adaptavist Test Management for Jira Pricing and Cost Advice →
Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is ranked 13th in Test Management Tools with 4 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is rated 7.2, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Adaptavist Test Management for Jira writes "Integrates with any automation tool, but the granular reporting feature should be more intuitive ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis qTest writes "Puts all our test cases in one location where everyone can see them. qTest also allows the segregation of different types of Testing". Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, Tricentis Tosca and Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and IBM Rational Quality Manager.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management 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.