We evaluated five tools, narrowed it down to three, and qTest was ranked as number one. SmartBear, the HP tool, and Tricentis were the top-three. Back then, it was QASymphony. It was before Tricentis bought them out.

The solution had to manage test plans, requirements, and test design. We wanted to make sure we could revise test cases as we moved forward with releases. Because we're not centralized as a testing organization — we have other groups that do our testing — it had to be able to get them involved cohesively. It had to track defects. Also, we do not have a project management tool, nor do we do DevOps projects. But we are continually doing different releases of all types of medical software. So we wanted to be able to manage our releases for all of our software. Ninety percent of our software is medical, but we also have things such as supplier management. We wanted to be able to do it all, all of our test cases, in one location. We wanted it to be easy to share. We also wanted it to have a good road-map toward the future. It needed to be integrative and have the ability for single-sign-on.

We actually did a bake-off between Tricentis and QASymphony. And then we got the best of both worlds when Tricentis acquired QASymphony.

We looked at Zephyr and Xray but they were really too small-scale for the enterprise that we have. They probably would have saved us a lot of money, but our efficiency would have really scaled off.

I've used QAComplete from SmartBear. I've used HP QC or ALM from Micro Focus. I also used an old IBM rational test manager which I think was called SQA.

I think qTest was really built to support Agile, where the other tools were built to support traditional Waterfall but were easily adaptable to Agile. qTest is probably going to struggle a bit before they can truly support non-Agile implementations.

Being a lead manager, I shopped around among many ALM tools and tried to understand which would really suffice the needs of our newer tool. We found qTest was the most user-friendly, and I can even say the most popular. The cost-effectiveness was also part of it. All of that helped us choose this.

Comparing Micro Focus and qTest, the cost of qTest is far less. Secondly, the cloud base and the fact that I am able to see everything on one screen is helpful. Although Micro Focus is updating as the time goes by, it's not as easy and as user-friendly as qTest.

There's reporting in both solutions. qTest Insights has more customization. Although ALM has some customization, it's not so easy to set up. You need to write a type of VBScript code to do more customization. But in Insights, it's easier for me to customize my reports.

We use both solutions, but the team that started using qTest is entirely different. The team is new, the product is new, so they didn't find any difficulty in adopting this tool. The other team, which was using Micro Focus ALM is still using it. We have not changed any team's structure because qTest is used by the newer team and Micro Focus ALM is used by the older people.

We looked at SpiraTest Inflectra and TestRail. SpiraTest is definitely competitive with qTest. We found everything that was in qTest was in SpiraTest as well. But there were flaws in terms of the terminologies used by Inflectra. It would not be easy for any QA to really understand. That was one of the differences we found. And the initial support which I needed from SpiraTest — I did have to mail them every day — was not what I wanted. I was not getting immediate answers to my questions. 

As for TestRail, its integration with JIRA was not as easy as we thought it would be. That was one of the flaws in TestRail which caused us to give up on it and we moved to qTest.

An evaluation was opened up to search for the proper solution. qTest was the winner. 

We have evaluated several other tools. But the features, especially the requirements being integrated with the test cases, are pretty awesome. Many tools do not have the features and, even if they have those features, they are not as simplified as they are in qTest. That's one of the primary reasons qTest has been very useful for us.

Open-source solutions don't have as many features and their usability is also not as good.

Multiple people in our company evaluated other solutions and, based on all their input, we finally chose qTest. 

We looked into SmartBear and Zephyr, and not that we would purchase Quality Center, but it was used as a benchmark.

The main reason for going with qTest was not only that their test management application is more feature-rich and a good solution compared to others, but the ability to create a dashboard and report on a ton of metrics. We could have saved a lot of money, but I pushed hard for paying a premium to get the Insights dashboard.

We were looking at Tricentis Tosca, when qTest was still QASymphony, before it became Tricentis qTest. Those were really the two we were looking at. We weren't looking to replace our UFT solution because, to me, it's something we already purchased. But we were looking to expand, for our testers; looking for easier ways for them to get their work done. Not all of them are coders.

QASymphony met the immediate needs, which were that we needed a central place to manage all our test cases. We needed to get away from the Excel spreadsheets. We needed to get away from storing stuff on network drives. This solved a long-time problem of stuff being scattered everywhere.

The con with qTest is that it has plugins to run UFT automation, or it creates Selenium scripts for us. But Tricentis Tosca is the one that I am looking to download a demo of. I've got some links here to evaluate how it would help my testers, who are really good at manual testing, to start creating automated tests, using that software suite. And how do we integrate it with qTest, ultimately?

We evaluated QASymphony and QMetry. To begin with, we had a list of about ten tools that researched on the internet and via some phone calls. We narrowed it down to these two and Tricentis.

The main differentiators were the dashboard and reporting mechanism, the artifact reporting mechanism, and the JIRA integration. Those were the reasons we chose Tricentis.

I can't comment, I wasn't involved.

We evaluated the Hiptest solution.