We performed a comparison between PractiTest 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 most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."
"The most valuable feature is reusing test cases. We can put in a set of test cases for an application and, every time we deploy it, we are able to rerun those tests very easily. It saves us time and improves quality as well."
"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."
"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 solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"Being able to log into Defects, go right into JIRA, add that defect to the user story, right there at that point, means we connect all of that. That is functionality we haven't had in the past. As a communication hub, it works really well. It's pretty much a closed loop; it's all contained right there. There's no delay. You're getting from the defect to the system to JIRA to the developer."
"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"What I found most valuable in Tricentis qTest is that it doesn't require installation. You use it through the URL. It also has an excellent reporting feature."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."
"We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge."
"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."
"I would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me."
"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."
"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order."
"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."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
Earn 20 points
PractiTest is ranked 14th in Test Management Tools while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. PractiTest is rated 8.8, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of PractiTest writes "Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization". 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". PractiTest is most compared with TestRail, Jira, Zephyr Enterprise and Microsoft Azure DevOps, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and TFS.
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.
