I have used Micro Focus LoadRunner at a couple of locations. The Micro Focus tool is very complex and not as user-friendly as qTest is. I knew that implementing HP, plus the price — it is much more expensive than qTest — would be more difficult.

So the factors were both price and usability of the tool. Because some of the people who do our testing are not IS people. They don't understand the software development lifecycle. You have to make it simple for them to use, and I can do that within qTest.

We used Micro Focus ALM but switched to Tricentis qTest because upgrading Micro Focus ALM requires reinstalling and setting up all the users again, which requires admin rights. In our company, providing admin rights was challenging because of the number of users.

Performance-wise, we also found Micro Focus ALM lacking because it's slow, and users complained a lot about waiting for some time before they get to the next page. We also didn't find Micro Focus ALM user-friendly.

Those were the critical factors that made us switch to Tricentis qTest.

We were using the HP suite. We switched because of price point and ease of use. We went into agile quickly, as an enterprise, and HP wasn't at an agile point at that time. We needed to make a switch.

qTest is much more intuitive and straightforward. There's not a lot of complexity to it. HP opened up the world so there were far too many features than we needed. That became a burden over time. HP's integration with JIRA was difficult. It was a thick client and it was very difficult to use the web interface and have good response times. I could go on and on, but you get the gist of it.

I previously worked with Micro Focus Quality Center, which may now be under OpenText or another entity. The reporting functionality and the seamless integration with various solutions out of the box are noteworthy aspects. Quality Center is a comprehensive ALM tool, that enables requirements management within the platform. In contrast, in qTest within Cisco, there's a reliance on importing features from external sources, especially in agile projects where qTest appears to be superior. The key difference lies in reporting preferences, with a personal inclination towards liking the key test reports better, although in large organizations, these reports might necessitate some filtering.

Cost and time were the main reasons I went with qTest. If I were to have my choice, I probably would have implemented the Micro Focus product because I am familiar with it and know it can do everything I wanted to do. But that would likely have been overkill; way more than this project needed, and it was much more costly. 

I was looking at another tool, the SmartBear QAComplete tool that I had used on a previous project. I didn't necessarily like that tool, but its cost was less than either qTest or HP QC/ALM. But once I get my hands on qTest, I definitely liked it better than the QAComplete product.

The ease of use and the interface helped push me toward qTest. I had also called a friend and he said. You have to look at QASymphony or Tricentis. This qTest is good." I said, "Are you sure?" He said, "Yes, it's good. Trust me." That helped push me over the top.

Previously, we used Micro Focus ALM. Now, we have divided our products internally: an old product where we use Micro Focus, and a new product for which we wanted a newer tool to be implemented, which is qTest.

We used JIRA and both the Zephyr and the Xray plugins. The scalability of those plug-ins was usually fine. They scaled along with JIRA, and JIRA is endlessly scalable. Reporting is where they would fall down. JIRA doesn't have the greatest reporting and most of the reporting is manual. When you're looking at reporting within qTest, most of it is already built for you. It has canned reports that already exist and which don't require a lot of effort. Mind you, that is where qTest somewhat falls down as well, on the reporting side of things, but it is still head-and-shoulders above the open-source solutions.

The decision to move to qTest was due to the way we had our implementation. We had no central, single enterprise-class test case management solution available to any of our teams. As they grew and became more extensive, they found either that the low-budget solutions they were using, or the open-source solutions that we're using, or the complete lack of solutions that they had, were simply not adequate. The decision was made at that time by upper management that we needed to find a central, enterprise-class solution for test case management. 

Previously we had TestLink but we found many challenges with it when we had to run automated tests. There are good features in qTest, which helps us in maintaining it and sharing with others, with ease. The UIs are good and give a lot of flexibility to the testers when working with them. Those are some of the main reasons that we chose qTest for our test management.

We did an extensive evaluation of qTest. We had multiple people from Tricentis helping us during our evaluation process. It has been adding value to our organization.

We worked with a customized plugin within JIRA, not even a basic, off-the-shelf version. It was an in-house created module that was built to integrate. They couldn't afford to buy a plug-in, so they made one. That was why we started looking for a new solution. It was horrible. I would have preferred Excel.

We were using Rational ClearCase before and we switched because it's antiquated and outdated.

We did Excel spreadsheets and saved stuff on network drives. We use the unified functional testing as our automated stuff but it was all very manual. This is way better than what we were doing before.

We used to have Micro Focus ALM Quality Center as our test management tool and we were nearing our licensing limitation at the time. We evaluated a couple of tools in the market and we picked up qTest because it had a better reporting mechanism and dashboard features, along with a clean integration with JIRA.

In this organization, Tricentis was the first. In my last job we used Micro Focus Quality Center. Both it and qTest are a pain. They're pretty similar.

Used Excel for test case management and evaluated open source TestLink for some time. Being an open source tool it did not have many features. Used Rational Quality Manager in previous organization but it did not have as much third party tool integration options or automation integration

We were not using any other solution before.