We performed a comparison between Tricentis qTest and Zeenyx AscentialTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools."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."
"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 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."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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."
"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 solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"AscentialTest's object recognition in snapshots is a robust feature that goes beyond standard elements, even accurately identifying objects within Datawindows."
"The most valuable feature of AscentialTest for us is that it fully supports PowerBuilder."
"It’s been really easy to automate the same application TestComplete struggled with. I have been able to automate two of our key applications in just a few months. I haven’t even taken their training."
"If you use the PowerBuilder application, do choose AscentialTest without thinking twice."
"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."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"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 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."
"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."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"The only thing I can't wait for is for Zeenyx to add automating Mobile apps."
"Classes are not as object-oriented as I would like, but I am a programmer and not QA so I expect a lot."
"Streamlining the retrieval of results from individual test set runs would be beneficial."
"I would like to see an improvement in the User Interface."
Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews while Zeenyx AscentialTest is ranked 10th in Test Management Tools with 13 reviews. Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4, while Zeenyx AscentialTest is rated 9.4. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Zeenyx AscentialTest writes "Robust automation with reusable steps and seamless integration". Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and TFS, whereas Zeenyx AscentialTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca and SmartBear TestComplete.
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.
