We performed a comparison between TFS 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."I like the build management features and the integration with Jenkins and many other tools."
"Build definitions and releases within the product. allow us to put our latest applications in the field."
"TFS’s test management capability without the expensive licensing has large gaps. Users will be unable to access performance testing and coded UI testing capabilities."
"I like the Kanban board. It is very useful in terms of seeing who is working on what and what the current status of work is."
"The most valuable features of TFS are bug reporting and its high performance."
"TFS is very user-friendly."
"It is easy to push our changes from quality to pre-prod and prod."
"I feel that the test plan and test tools are more manageable in TFS."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"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 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 solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"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."
"Integration from Visual Studio could be improved."
"It would be better if we could bring it out on the cloud."
"I only use 1% of the functionality, so I am not familiar enough to know what needs to be improved."
"TFS isn't a great tool if you're on the cloud."
"I would like to see the reporting features expanded so that I can see details on the users connected to all of the projects."
"The dashboard needs more enhancements."
"TFS's CI/CD, project pipelines, and management development could be improved."
"One of the areas that could be improved is to have an effective full lifecycle management."
"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."
"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 support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"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."
"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."
TFS is ranked 2nd in Test Management Tools with 93 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. TFS is rated 8.0, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of TFS writes "It is helpful for scheduled releases and enforcing rules, but it should be better at merging changes for multiple developers and retaining the historical information". 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". TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, Visual Studio Test Professional and Atlassian ALM, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Panaya Test Dynamix. See our TFS 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.