Most Helpful Review
Good project management features improve discipline and productivity in our application development lifecycle
Helps us to quickly come up with a test plan, but overall, it's not as intuitive to use as it could be
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It's an integrated system that includes all the information that we need to deliver our products smoothly and to track the progress of each piece of code."
"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."
"I like the build management features and the integration with Jenkins and many other tools."
"This solution enables us to link all items usefully, in the way we use Agile."
"The most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability."
"The interface is easy to navigate."
"The most valuable feature is the backlog."
"Good branching and labelling features."
"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."
"The dashboard needs more enhancements."
"In the next release, I would like them to include integration for various projects, similar to what JIRA has, and they could create this feature on the dashboard."
"One of the areas that could be improved is to have an effective full lifecycle management."
"The test management interface is not very handy."
"The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly."
"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 program and portfolio planning facility can be improved."
"Integration from Visual Studio could be improved."
"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."
Pricing and Cost Advice
"The pricing is reasonable at this time."
"TFS is more competitively priced than some other solutions."
"We pay subscription fees on a yearly basis and the price is reasonable."
"I wouldn't say that this tool is cheap or expensive but in the middle."
"We are using the open-source version."
"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."
Questions from the Community
Top Answer: The most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability.
Top Answer: I would like to see TFS integrated with a project management solution, such as Microsoft EPM. Right now, it is isolated from EPM but if we could somehow connect it, then that would help a lot. As it… more »
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
out of 32 in Test Management Tools
Average Words per Review
out of 32 in Test Management Tools
Average Words per Review
Compared 43% of the time.
Compared 30% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 1% of the time.
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Also Known As
|Team Foundation Server||qTest|
|Visual Studio Team Foundation Server (TFS) is the collaboration platform at the core of Microsoft's application lifecycle management (ALM) solution. TFS supports agile development practices, multiple IDEs and platforms locally or in the cloud and gives you the tools you need to effectively manage software development projects throughout the IT lifecycle.||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.|
Learn more about TFS
Learn more about Tricentis qTest
|Vendex KBB IT Services, Info Support, Fujitsu Consulting, TCSC, Airways New Zealand, HP||Amazon, Salesforce, Barclays, Adobe, SecureWorks, Samsung, OfficeDepot, Zappos, Cisco, Visa, Verizon, FICO, Silverpop, Nordstrom|
Financial Services Firm41%
Computer Software Company16%
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider16%
Computer Software Company29%
Financial Services Firm14%
Computer Software Company35%
Comms Service Provider15%
Financial Services Firm6%
TFS is ranked 2nd in Test Management Tools with 15 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 10 reviews. TFS is rated 7.8, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of TFS writes "Good project management features improve discipline and productivity in our application development lifecycle". 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". TFS is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Jira, Rally Software, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Micro Focus ALM Octane, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, Cognizant ADPART, Zephyr Enterprise and TestRail by Gurock. 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.