We performed a comparison between SmartBear TestComplete and Tricentis qTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Automation Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ease-of-use and quality of the overall product are above average."
"Customer service and technical support responsiveness are high. Everyone is very professional."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"The solution is mainly stable."
"The database checkpoints detect problems which are difficult for a human resource to find."
"You can record your actions and play them back later."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"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."
"TestComplete gives support to do requests to a SOAP web service but has no support to do HTTP requests on Restful services."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"Increased performance with less memory and CPU usage."
"The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS."
"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing."
"The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS."
"Stability issues occurred only when connecting to the SourceSafe. Sometimes, after getting the latest version, the tool hangs and it should be reopened in order to recover."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 7th in Test Automation Tools with 71 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. SmartBear TestComplete is rated 7.6, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "A stable product that needs to improve its integration capabilities with other test management tools". 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". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Katalon Studio, Ranorex Studio, OpenText UFT One and froglogic Squish, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail and Zephyr Enterprise. See our SmartBear TestComplete vs. Tricentis qTest report.
We monitor all Test Automation 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.