Compare TFS vs. Tricentis qTest

TFS is ranked 3rd in Test Management Tools with 8 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 4th in Test Management Tools with 10 reviews. TFS is rated 7.8, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of TFS writes "Nice dashboard, good task-selection capability, and the option to save pages as favorites is helpful". 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 JIRA, Microsoft Azure DevOps and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, TFS and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. See our TFS vs. Tricentis qTest report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
TFS Logo
Read 8 TFS reviews.
28,006 views|23,617 comparisons
Tricentis qTest Logo
5,373 views|3,108 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about TFS vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
399,230 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 most valuable features are the dashboard and task-selection capability.This solution enables us to link all items usefully, in the way we use Agile.I like the build management features and the integration with Jenkins and many other tools.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.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.From the project management perspective, the tool is efficiently managing teams by giving management information, such as reports, graphs, velocity, capacity, etc.The biggest value-add is the solution integrates well with most Microsoft products.Build definitions and releases within the product. allow us to put our latest applications in the field.

Read more »

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.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 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 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 integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good.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.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.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...

Read more »

Cons
The interface can be improved and made more user-friendly.The test management interface is not very handy.One of the areas that could be improved is to have an effective full lifecycle management.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.The dashboard needs more enhancements.More options could be provided from the perspective of requirements management, which would help product owners to use the tool effectively.Since it is Microsoft, it is technology agnostic, thus it does not really fit into various different technologies in the organization.We are also using Microsoft Teams. The two products function separately. There is not enough collaboration between Microsoft Teams and TFS.

Read more »

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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
It is pretty expensive compared to other project management tools.

Read more »

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.We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that.We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license.It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market.Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year.The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount.For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
399,230 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
3rd
Views
28,006
Comparisons
23,617
Reviews
8
Average Words per Review
275
Avg. Rating
8.1
4th
Views
5,373
Comparisons
3,108
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
2,048
Avg. Rating
8.2
Top Comparisons
Compared 40% of the time.
Compared 28% of the time.
Compared 23% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Also Known As
Team Foundation ServerqTest
Learn
Microsoft
Tricentis
Overview
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.
Offer
Learn more about TFS
Learn more about Tricentis qTest
Sample Customers
Vendex KBB IT Services, Info Support, Fujitsu Consulting, TCSC, Airways New Zealand, HPAmazon, Salesforce, Barclays, Adobe, SecureWorks, Samsung, OfficeDepot, Zappos, Cisco, Visa, Verizon, FICO, Silverpop, Nordstrom
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm46%
Manufacturing Company13%
Software R&D Company13%
Retailer8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Comms Service Provider10%
Financial Services Firm9%
Manufacturing Company7%
REVIEWERS
Software R&D Company29%
Manufacturing Company14%
Insurance Company14%
Healthcare Company14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company31%
Comms Service Provider17%
Insurance Company13%
Manufacturing Company9%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business14%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise65%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business2%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise90%
REVIEWERS
Small Business8%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise67%
Find out what your peers are saying about TFS vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
399,230 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.