Lana RousakovskiSenior Leader in Software Testing and Process Improvement at a tech company
ChrisFirstSenior Architect at a manufacturing company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"In terms of meeting business challenges, it helped to shorten the dev/testing cycle by identifying requirements gaps early in the process, by having models shared within the development team. It helped increase test coverage and reduce the number of issues experienced by clients/customers."
"The ability to create models/diagrams at multiple levels (nest/embed them) helps in taking models from high-level business requirements and building them into detailed requirements models and test models. Plus, it helps reuse lower level models. It also allows maintaining models at appropriate levels, even for very complex systems/solutions."
"Integration with TDM, test data management tool, provides the ability to generate data or use identified (preset or parametrized) test data. It allows significant expansion of test coverage and flexibility, without creating new tests and needing to maintain them."
"Integration with automation is one of the reasons we started to consider moving to this tool from our original tool for implementing test modeling. ARD appears to have better integration with Selenium. It also has the ability to record scripts/flows using Selenium Builder and import them into ARD, which will then create and optimize a model based on that."
"Measuring test coverage helps in one of the most challenging tasks. It has logic that can help to select the right set of scenarios and know what coverage it will provide."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 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."
"Needs improvement in aligning models so they look clear and readable without having to move boxes around."
"It would help if it would save different subsets of test cases, use cases, etc., of a given diagram, for different purposes and provide an easy way to name those subsets."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"Recommendation is to go with concurrent licenses as oppose to seat license; this gives more flexibility."
"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
"We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
Earn 20 points
Tricentis is the global leader in enterprise continuous testing, widely credited for reinventing software testing for DevOps, cloud, and enterprise applications. The Tricentis AI-based, continuous testing platform provides a new and fundamentally different way to perform software testing. An approach that’s totally automated, fully codeless, and intelligently driven by AI. It addresses both agile development and complex enterprise apps, enabling enterprises to accelerate their digital transformation by dramatically increasing software release speed, reducing costs, and improving software quality.
Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is ranked 8th in Test Management Tools with 1 review while Tricentis qTest is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 10 reviews. Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is rated 9.0, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer writes "Eliminates requirements gaps early in the development process & make test design process more efficient ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis qTest writes "Provides a central point of reference for tracking bugs and failures, who owns the issue and its status". Broadcom Agile Requirements Designer is most compared with Cognizant ADPART, Tricentis Tosca, Jira, IBM Rational DOORS and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, Cognizant ADPART, Zephyr Enterprise and Panaya Test Dynamix.
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.