Compare SmartBear TestComplete vs. Tricentis qTest

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Worksoft Certify Logo
14,364 views|4,034 comparisons
SmartBear TestComplete Logo
18,518 views|12,413 comparisons
Tricentis qTest Logo
6,417 views|3,417 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear TestComplete vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
456,249 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
"The ease of use is superior to anything on the market. It's very easy to integrate. We've been very impressed with the tool. Because we primarily use the configuration with SAP, the integration is pretty seamless. But we have used our own in-house VB app as well, and it's worked very well with that.""We love the Capture 2.0 feature. It seems to work very well.""The ability to work with the data, with recordsets, and plug those into the scripts is very easy and very powerful. We use it extensively.""It's script-free, which is really important for our end users because we are usually dealing with colleagues who are not developers and who do not always have the technical background of developing and scripting. It's very useful that there is a nice UI and the tool is script-free.""One big advantage of Worksoft Certify is its integration with SAP Solution Manager...""It is very user-friendly with an appealing UI, unlike a lot of other automation tools that we have evaluated. The fact that it can be used to across SAP and non-SAP applications (including web-based apps) is a big advantage. Using Certify Process Capture functionality has helped in hassle free test design creation, without the need to spend any extra effort to capture test steps and screenshots. The integration elements across HPE ALM and Solution Manager also work well.""If we write a new test that's 80 percent the same as an existing test, it is pretty straightforward to reuse the steps from existing tests for our new tests and build upon them.""It is very easy to maintain. With scripts, I can change one line and in one step. Whatever I want, I can do. I don't need to be an expert to use it."

More Worksoft Certify Pros »

"The most valuable feature is the integration with Azure DevOps.""The most valuable feature of this solution is regression testing tools.""The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers.""The solution is great as a record and playback tool. It also has valuable regression testing.""Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are handled well.""The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup.""The most valuable features are the desktop and mobile modules.""TestComplete is simple, it's a very easy-to-use tool."

More SmartBear TestComplete Pros »

"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."

More Tricentis qTest Pros »

Cons
"In the past, when we've tried to automate some of our web apps, it has not been as robust. If there were one thing that could be improved, it's interaction with web applications. The issue we were running into is that it was harder to identify the objects than it is with some of the other architectured applications.""The definitions for the objects need to be automated. They need to be recognized automatically by Worksoft Certify instead of changing them back and forth manually. This is also something that Worksoft is currently working on.""Our interactions with technical support has not been the best always and there is room for improvement especially with respect to the time taken to respond to cases. However, with the right contacts and reasonable escalations we have always managed to get quick attention on our cases.""One feature that we have been asking for has been to treat tests as code and store the source code for tests in a configuration management tool. Right now, for version control of testing, it's all internally within the tool. If we have a test of a business process and want to revive that test, our methodology now is purely manual work. We go into the tool, create a copy of the existing test, and call the next one: v2. Now, we have two of them and the only way you can tell them apart is by its naming convention.""I would like to see the impact analysis integrated with the performance testing tool. We have multiple tools doing multiple items. I would like to have one common tool.""We are looking for some enhancements on the Capture 2.0 tool. This would give us the ability to control it directly, like we could with Capture 1.0. Right now, Capture 2.0 doesn't really work for our Business Analysts.""There was a change to Capture 2.0. In the end, there have been some challenges with the newer version. Therefore, the company testers, the local ones, do not want to use Capture 2.0.""When it is unstable, there will be times when a test that we are running in Certify will just stop, and it will say, "Aborted." There will be errors. There will be no explanation as to why it happens. It has now happened maybe one out of 20 times. When it happens, I just tell our QA team to stop Certify and restart it, hoping we don't see it again."

More Worksoft Certify Cons »

"What is currently missing from this solution is better support for mobile testing.""The artificial intelligence needs to be improved.""The solution needs Mac OS support. Right now, the solution has only been developed to accommodate Windows OS.""The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation.""The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and publications for Android as well as iOS.""The test object repository needs to be improved. The hierarchy and the way we identify the objects in different applications, irrespective of technology, needs adjustments. The located and test objects are not as flexible compared to other commercial tools.""The licensing costs are a little bit high and should be reduced.""Name Mapping feature should be clearer. Whenever I use it, I do not really know what will work and what will not work."

More SmartBear TestComplete Cons »

"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."

More Tricentis qTest Cons »

Pricing and Cost Advice
"We would purchase more licenses right now if they were cheaper. Pricing is a little bit of a hindrance.""It is expensive compared to some of the other automation tools in the market. However, the benefits and ROI has proved that it has been a good investment.""The initial upfront cost in terms of licenses, plus all the money that we spent developing tests, has proven it's worth. Now, we can do a regression test suite in ten days as opposed to sixteen weeks.""Our ROI is primarily a reduction in testing time. The testing, when we were doing it manually, was 30 to 40 percent of the project's cost.""We ended up buying too many licenses. They were very good at selling it to us, and probably oversold it a little. We bought 45 licenses and have never used more than twenty. However, they gave us a pretty significant discount on the bigger license, so it made sense for us to buy enough that we wouldn't have to go back and ask for more.""We could use Certify to do robotic process automation, which is basically running a process on your correction system instead of your test system. Therefore, we may do that in the future.""By using automation, it reduced about 75 percent of the time when compared to any other tool.""Saving money and better quality, these are the benefits of Certify."

More Worksoft Certify Pricing and Cost Advice »

"This is a pay-per-use service that is not expensive, and cost-efficient if you have a small team.""The option we chose was around $2,000 USD.""The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000.""The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive.""Our ROI is about $10,000 a year.""The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."

More SmartBear TestComplete Pricing and Cost Advice »

"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."

More Tricentis qTest Pricing and Cost Advice »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
456,249 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: It does allow for good reusability. When it's designed properly and utilized properly, we can put things in a way that… more »
Top Answer: Looking at it as a product fully packaged, I would like to see more documentation or ease of use of the documentation… more »
Top Answer: Complete works perfectly with CUTE. That includes all dialogues, right-click menus, or system dialogues, etc., which are… more »
Top Answer: I'm not sure if there are licensing costs involved in the solution. We simply bought the product outright and started… more »
Top Answer: The solution needs to extend the possibilities so that we can test on other operating systems, platforms and… more »
Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Popular Comparisons
Compared 32% of the time.
Compared 26% of the time.
Compared 38% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Also Known As
qTest
Learn
Worksoft
SmartBear
Tricentis
Overview
Worksoft is a leading global provider of automation software for high-velocity business process testing and discovery. Enterprises worldwide use Worksoft intelligent automation to innovate faster, lower technology risk, reduce costs, improve quality, and deeply understand their real end-to-end business processes. Global 5000 companies across all industries choose Worksoft for high speed process discovery and functional testing of digital, web, cloud, mobile, big data, and dozens of enterprise applications, including SAP, Oracle, and Salesforce.com.

TestComplete is a powerful and robust automated testing tool for mobileweb and desktop  applications. Quickly and easily create accurate and repeatable tests across multiple devices, platforms and environments – regardless of experience level. It supports multiple languages, modern control sets and integrates with open source frameworks and tools like Selenium, SoapUI and Jenkins.

QASymphony is a leading provider of enterprise test case management, test analytics and exploratory testing solutions for agile development and QA teams. Our solutions help companies create better software by improving speed, efficiency and collaboration during the testing process.
Offer
Learn more about Worksoft Certify
Learn more about SmartBear TestComplete
Learn more about Tricentis qTest
Sample Customers
Kraft, Reliant Energy, Richemont, Applied Materials, Siemens PLM, Mosaic, Dow Corning, ebay, IBM, Accenture, Fortis BC, US Government, Southwest AirlinesCisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.Amazon, Salesforce, Barclays, Adobe, SecureWorks, Samsung, OfficeDepot, Zappos, Cisco, Visa, Verizon, FICO, Silverpop, Nordstrom
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Manufacturing Company28%
Energy/Utilities Company13%
Consumer Goods Company13%
Logistics Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company36%
Comms Service Provider12%
Manufacturing Company8%
Financial Services Firm7%
REVIEWERS
Computer Software Company26%
Manufacturing Company11%
Comms Service Provider11%
Financial Services Firm11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company35%
Comms Service Provider13%
Government6%
Financial Services Firm5%
REVIEWERS
Computer Software Company29%
Energy/Utilities Company14%
Healthcare Company14%
Financial Services Firm14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company34%
Comms Service Provider14%
Insurance Company7%
Financial Services Firm6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business6%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise85%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business9%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise82%
REVIEWERS
Small Business19%
Midsize Enterprise36%
Large Enterprise45%
REVIEWERS
Small Business8%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise67%
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear TestComplete vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
456,249 professionals have used our research since 2012.

SmartBear TestComplete is ranked 5th in Test Automation Tools with 11 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 10 reviews. SmartBear TestComplete is rated 8.0, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of SmartBear TestComplete writes "Easy set up and test creation but the test object repository needs improvement". 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". SmartBear TestComplete is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Ranorex Studio, Katalon Studio, Micro Focus UFT One and Automation Anywhere (AA), whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, Cognizant ADPART, TFS and Adaptavist Test Management for Jira. See our SmartBear TestComplete vs. Tricentis qTest report.

See our list of .

We monitor all Test Automation 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.