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."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 most valuable features of TestRail by Gurock are the user experience, it's very easy to learn. There is no learning curve needed to work on projects and manage the test cases, it is easy. Exporting and importing are simple."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is the dashboard."
"The most valuable features are the reporting in the dashboard and the general way in which we can create test runs is helpful."
"Integration with Confluence and JIRA."
"This is a user friendly solution."
"The solution is very stable. We've never had any issues with it."
"Reliable and stable. It is important that TestRail be up and running 24/7 as we have users around the world using it."
"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."
"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 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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There are a number of improvements that have been requested. While I don't have a list of these requests available, many can be found on Gurock's forum."
"Better prediction of text."
"I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira, which haven't been permanently resolved yet."
"The product is not focused on synthetic data creation. I would also like to see more integrations with other platforms."
"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."
"It would be nice to have a description section when creating the test scenario itself so I can indicate what the configuration should be."
"TestRail should improve its pricing."
"This solution has room for improvement. For example, some particular projects need to adjust access or add additional members and this isn't always possible. Role-based access would improve this."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
TestRail is ranked 3rd 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 PractiTest, 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.
