Compare Tricentis qTest vs. Visual Studio Test Professional

Tricentis qTest is ranked 4th in Test Management Tools with 10 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 8 reviews. Tricentis qTest is rated 8.2, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Good integration between the management data and the test cases". Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, TFS and Micro Focus ALM Quality Center, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Katalon Studio and Apache JMeter. See our Tricentis qTest vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use Visual Studio Test Professional? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis qTest vs. Visual Studio Test Professional and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
396,781 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 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 »

The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper.Performance-wise, it is a great tool.The most valuable feature is the in-built support for C# and .NET projects.The most valuable features are the SSIS reports, the deployment models, and the ability to interact with other Microsoft tools.The solution is very stable; there's nothing in relation to stability to complain about.The setup is easy and straightforward.Code testing is the most valuable feature of this solution for developing software.We are satisfied with technical support. Communicating with them is very simple. We also have a lot of online resources to check and to study and to train our team with. The documentation is very clear and readily available.

Read more »

Cons
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 »

The integration with Git needs improving because it is a bit disjointed and unpredictable.The pricing of this solution should be lowered.We would like to be able to easily integrate this solution with our continuous integration tools, such as Jenkins.The documents on the Microsoft website are not very useful, and they ought to make it easier to find answers.The database administration could be better; you should be able to choose new tools with the development environment in Visual Studio. It could be easier to use.The data flow can be improved.Enhancing the support for web application testing and load performance would be an improvement.The service right now is far too expensive. You need to pay per user.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

I think that the pricing is quite good.For the cloud services option, you buy a subscription per account or per user. This costs around $52 a month per person.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
396,781 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
4th
Views
5,373
Comparisons
3,108
Reviews
10
Average Words per Review
2,048
Avg. Rating
8.2
6th
Views
4,503
Comparisons
3,616
Reviews
6
Average Words per Review
435
Avg. Rating
8.8
Top Comparisons
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 15% of the time.
Also Known As
qTest
Learn
Tricentis
Microsoft
Overview
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.Visual Studio Professional Edition provides an IDE for all supported development languages. As of Visual Studio 2010, the Standard edition was dropped. MSDN support is available as MSDN Essentials or the full MSDN library depending on licensing. It supports XML and XSLT editing, and can create deployment packages that only use ClickOnce and MSI. It includes tools like Server Explorer and integration with Microsoft SQL Server also. Windows Mobile development support was included in Visual Studio 2005 Standard, however, with Visual Studio 2008, it is only available in Professional and higher editions. Windows Phone 7 development support was added to all editions in Visual Studio 2010. Development for Windows Mobile is no longer supported in Visual Studio 2010; it is superseded by Windows Phone 7.
Offer
Learn more about Tricentis qTest
Learn more about Visual Studio Test Professional
Sample Customers
Amazon, Salesforce, Barclays, Adobe, SecureWorks, Samsung, OfficeDepot, Zappos, Cisco, Visa, Verizon, FICO, Silverpop, NordstromTransport for Greater Manchester, Ordina, Bluegarden A/S, CLEAResult, Jet.com, OSIsoft, Australian Taxation Office, BookedOut, Tracasa
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Software R&D Company29%
Healthcare Company14%
Financial Services Firm14%
Energy/Utilities Company14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company31%
Comms Service Provider18%
Insurance Company13%
Manufacturing Company9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company48%
Insurance Company14%
Healthcare Company6%
Media Company6%
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis qTest vs. Visual Studio Test Professional and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
396,781 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.