Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Helix ALM vs Tricentis qTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Helix ALM
Ranking in Test Management Tools
15th
Average Rating
6.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (19th), Application Requirements Management (7th)
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Helix ALM is 2.5%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 16.1%, up from 10.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Harold Pogue - PeerSpot reviewer
Helix ALM is insanely configurable, with great traceability, and flexibility
The most valuable features of Helix ALM are traceability and flexibility. One thing that distinguishes Helix ALM from other solutions is that it is a hybrid cloud model. Helix ALM is not a full cloud implementation like Valerian, Jira Jama, or Atlassian, where we just go through a browser onto the cloud. In the case of Helix, we have code that goes on our computer and then that communicates to the cloud. We have the backup and distribution capability of the cloud, but we have code executing on our machine, and we don't need to worry much about speed and internet lag problems.
Sudipto Dey - PeerSpot reviewer
It doesn't require installation because you can use it through the URL; it's user-friendly and has an excellent reporting feature
The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better. There's a feature I want to document on the Tricentis Idea Portal for Tricentis qTest, which I hope to see in the next version of the tool. It's a feature available in Micro Focus where you execute a test, and then on a spec level, you mark it as pass or fail. Then at the overall level, Micro Focus will automatically mark the test as a pass if all steps passed or failed, even if one step failed. However, here in Tricentis qTest, you still need to mark the overall level of the test cases. It's not automated, unlike what you have in Micro Focus. If Tricentis adds that feature in Tricentis qTest, it will make life easier for testers.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Helix ALM enables users to build, make efficient and effective decisions, and use least-cost methods for maximum benefit, as fast as possible. They allow you to see and visualize your configuration."
"The tool offers high stability."
"The most valuable features of Helix ALM are traceability and flexibility."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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."
"What I found most valuable in Tricentis qTest is that it doesn't require installation. You use it through the URL. It also has an excellent reporting feature."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"The accountability and the equivalent to using, acting, editing, working with Word, and also importing and exporting from Word needs improvement."
"It would be great to see Perforce's strategy is for implementing intelligence into the process via AI or ML. It's not clearly defined, at least not to my knowledge."
"Helix ALM should be able to integrate with other systems better. Helix ALM should also have an easier user interface, and the solution needs to have drag-and-drop tools included in it."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"I wouldn't say a lot of good things about Insights, but that's primarily because, with so many test cases, it is incredibly slow for us. We generally don't use it because of that."
"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."
"We faced challenges when trying to consolidate data in a repository, and similar features were lacking in qTest. It also does not allow for task tracking or calculating time spent on tasks, which affects project timelines."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I rate the product price a nine on a one to ten scale, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"I give the solution a nine out of ten for pricing."
"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."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray."
"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
"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."
"For me, pricing for Tricentis qTest is moderate, so that's a five out of ten. It's more affordable than my company's previous solution, which was Micro Focus ALM."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,712 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Healthcare Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Helix ALM?
I rate the product price a nine on a one to ten scale, where one is low price and ten is high price.
What needs improvement with Helix ALM?
Helix ALM should be able to integrate with other systems better. Helix ALM should also have an easier user interface, and the solution needs to have drag-and-drop tools included in it.
What do you like most about Tricentis qTest?
I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis qTest?
Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray.
What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?
Tricentis qTest needs improvement in its repositories' functionality. Unlike Azure, it does not have repositories to upload scripts. Additionally, it lacks features like task addition and tracking ...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

TestTrack
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Invision, Softing, CACI, Hunter Industries, ITSO, Itron, EEC, Database Consultants Australia, VirtualScopics, March Networks, WorkForce
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about Helix ALM vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,712 professionals have used our research since 2012.