Most Helpful Review
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:
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...
This solution is easy to use for everybody, including those who are not IT-educated.
The Model-Based Test Automation is the most valuable feature, where you can create reusable components. Even though we are using a scriptless automation tool, there still needs to be an understanding of how to create reusable components and how to keep refactoring and how to keep regression, the test scripts, at an okay level. We are coupling Tosca with some other risk-based testing tools, as well, but automation is primarily what we're using Tosca for, the scriptless, model-based technology which is driving automation for us.
Tosca BI is important to make sure that our data integrity is in check and validated; to make sure our data is good. Our data is the number-one important driver for our company, so if that's not good, we have some big problems.
The solution is script-less, so you don't need IT knowledge to use the solution in an operational way. This is the most valuable feature. It's also only one of two or three tools that can do good automation on SAP, and in my opinion, it's the best of those.
It has helped teams within our organization become more aware of the testing requirements in terms of risk and priority.
Compared to other tools we have been looking at, you don't have to be a programmer to operate it, though it helps. It also a product that can be used by business people.
We are satisfied with the support of Tricentis.
We have multiple applications, and it supports parallel execution. It has mobile automation.
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.
I would like to be able to manage different projects in one repository or have better data exchange between repositories.
There have been some setbacks because of upgrades. While Tosca has been around for a while, Tricentis has catered to smaller clients and I don't think they have done such a large, at-scale transition or transformation before or worked with a company like ours, which is doing an enterprise-wide transformation. When we go to their customer advisory-board meetings, upgrades have been an issue. They have been working a lot to make upgrades seamless.
The main area where there is room for improvement is how they do upgrades. Going through this current upgrade, we were delayed a month because we are using a third-party tool. It's called Tosca Connect by Tasktop. When this latest upgrade broke that relationship between the two, it took Tricentis a month to come back with a workable solution... Their whole upgrade process needs to be better and cleaner, from an end-user standpoint.
The solution should work with the Linux platform. Right now, it only runs on Windows.
Not being able to mask test data in relation to testing data management, in my opinion, is also a limitation.
Setup wasn't that straightforward; it was more complex. It all depends on the environment, because there were a lot of errors on our applications. Therefore, it wasn't an easy setup for us.
It needs better integration with JIRA.
I would like a better user interface.
Pricing and Cost Advice
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.
We have around 200 [concurrent] licenses and the cost around $1.4 million a year.
Tricentis Tosca may be relatively on the higher side in terms of pricing, but their sales rep can give pretty decent deals when asked.
We hired a consultant to figure out all the tools in our company and how they fit in our company before we purchased the solution.
out of 34 in Test Management Tools
Average Words per Review
out of 34 in Test Management Tools
Average Words per Review
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Also Known As
|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.|
Tricentis Tosca specializes in enabling large enterprises to improve the quality of their applications by equipping them to optimize, manage, and automate their software testing.
Tosca's model-based approach to software test automation enables enterprises to achieve high automation rates while maximizing business risk coverage.
Tricentis Tosca also provides market-leading test case design and planning capabilities, test data provisioning, service virtualization, mobile testing, and more.
Tosca is fully compatible with other testing solutions and Application Lifecycle Management products. Tricentis also offers uniquely designed testing solutions for SAP, ServiceNow, Trax, Avaloq, and Oracle.
Learn more about Tricentis qTest
Learn more about Tricentis Tosca
|Amazon, Salesforce, Barclays, Adobe, SecureWorks, Samsung, OfficeDepot, Zappos, Cisco, Visa, Verizon, FICO, Silverpop, Nordstrom||HBO, AMEX, BMW Group, ING, Bosch, Austrian Airlines, Deutsche Bank, Henkel, Allianz, Bank of America, UBS, Orange, Siemens, Swiss Re, Vodafone|
Software R&D Company29%
Financial Services Firm14%
Software R&D Company31%
Comms Service Provider18%
Financial Services Firm30%
Software R&D Company35%
Comms Service Provider12%
Financial Services Firm9%