We performed a comparison between TestRail and Tricentis qTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product helps us create test cases and reports."
"The most valuable features are the flexibility, ease of use for writing new test cases, the test plans, and the composition."
"The features that I have found most valuable are that there are various test case templates and test artifact maintenance."
"The API to support integration of the homemade automated testing tool."
"From a testing perspective, the management is awesome. I am able to do testing and then add the reporting and the evidence. It is fair in terms of the price that you're paying. You get what you're paying for."
"Most valuable features are the ease of organizing test cases and a great API for sending results from automated test run results into the database."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the UI. The structure of test cases is easy to understand."
"I haven't faced any stability issues using the solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"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..."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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 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."
"I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira, which haven't been permanently resolved yet."
"The TestRail API to integrate reporting of automated tests is complete, but requires many requests to identify the appropriate entry."
"TestRail should improve its pricing."
"I've encountered at some point, some difficulties on the administration side, but I don't remember exactly what they were."
"It would be nice to have a description section when creating the test scenario itself so I can indicate what the configuration should be."
"The reports should be more user-friendly."
"I do see room for lots of improvement in it. In terms of usability, duplication with test cases and constant creation of projects isn't easy. There is also too much API integration into automation tools, which is not there in ALM with UFT. Instead of setting it up as a project and using it, we set it up as a system for usability. It also lacks in the traceability aspect. For traceability, you need to use the JIRA plugin and drag traceability on JIRA, but the functionality is still quite limited. The biggest gap is mainframe testing. It would be good if I could start with mainframe testing. Manual granting of access is another issue. There is no API that I could use with another system where it is automated. There is an API for loading somebody to a project but not for adding to the application."
"With TestRail, the APIs are there, but they may not be able to easily integrate with the Jenkins."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"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."
TestRail is ranked 2nd in Test Management Tools with 21 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. TestRail is rated 8.0, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of TestRail writes "A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities". 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". TestRail is most compared with Zephyr Enterprise, TFS, Tricentis Tosca, Sealights and OpenText ALM / Quality Center, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, Zephyr Enterprise, TFS and Panaya Test Dynamix. See our TestRail vs. Tricentis qTest report.
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.
