PractiTest vs Tricentis qTest comparison

PractiTest and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. PractiTest is ranked #15, while Tricentis is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.7. PractiTest holds a 2.3% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 15.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of PractiTest users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

PractiTest

Read 7 PractiTest reviews

318 Views
243 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 16 Tricentis qTest reviews

1,630 Views
1,023 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

PractiTest

Tricentis qTest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Tricentis qTest and PractiTest are two competing test management tools. PractiTest is seen as superior due to its features, providing a better overall value.

Features: Tricentis qTest offers comprehensive test management capabilities, integrations with various tools, and efficient test execution management. PractiTest is known for its flexibility, customizable workflows, and advanced reporting capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Tricentis qTest users report performance speed issues, a need for a more intuitive reporting system, and occasional bugs in the interface. PractiTest users suggest better automation integration, enhanced documentation, and improvements in navigation ease.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Tricentis qTest provides swift deployment but has mixed customer support experiences. PractiTest users experience smooth deployment and reliable customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Tricentis qTest is more affordable with good return on investment. PractiTest is pricier but justified by its robust feature set and customization options.

To learn more, read our detailed PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest Report (Updated: December 2024).

Buyer's Guide

PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest

December 2024

Download the complete report

Helped 824,067 peers since 2012

Categories and Ranking

PractiTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

15th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (21st)

Tricentis qTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

4th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of PractiTest is 2.3%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 15.7%, up from 9.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

Nirmal Kumar Chaturvedi

Senior Software QA Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees

Offers one click graphical dashboard reports and advanced customization

Integration with other platforms, Test Set schedule, custom filters, requirements linking with the test case, and the Dashboard are the most valuable features of this product. Just one click on the Dashboard and we get all reports in graphical format. Dashboards and reports are very customizable and the ability to share metrics with other colleagues is a great feature. Custom filters are really a big advantage of PractiTest. We have hundreds of tests and test sets that we can arrange properly and easily thanks to this tool. In addition, PractiTest offers a good reporting module and integration with other platforms such as JIRA, which we use daily. Advanced customization allows us to customize the tool's settings in accordance with all our needs. We integrated PractiTest with Pivotal Tracker and it allowed us to have everything synced on two systems and to make our testing process more professional.

Read full review

Sudipto Dey

Technical Lead at Linde

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.

Read full review

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 the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."

"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 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."

"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."

"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."

"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."

"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..."

"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."

"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."

More Tricentis qTest pros

Cons

"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."

"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."

"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."

"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."

"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."

More Tricentis qTest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."

"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."

"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."

"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."

"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."

"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."

"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."

"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."

"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."

More Tricentis qTest pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

15%

Healthcare Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

11%

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?

The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall expe...

See all answers

Comparisons

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs PractiTest

Compared 37% of the time

Jira vs PractiTest

Compared 35% of the time

More PractiTest Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 28% of the time

OpenText ALM / Quality Center vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 25% of the time

TestRail vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 14% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 8% of the time

IBM Engineering Test Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 2% of the time

More Tricentis qTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

November 2024

Download PractiTest product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

November 2024

Download Tricentis qTest product report

Also Known As

No data available

qTest

Learn More

PractiTest

Tricentis

Overview

Manage your QA and Testing process, controlling your testing tasks while getting complete visibility into your results, and most importantly releasing your products in a professional way

Professional end to end QA management for your manual and automation testing.

Create your manual tests and organize them based on cycles, sprints, etc.
Seamlessly integrate your manual testing with your automation and CI processes.
Reuse tests and correlate results across different releases and products.
Release your products with confidence and control.

Tricentis is the global leader in enterprise continuous testing, widely credited for reinventing software testing for DevOps, cloud, and enterprise applications. The Tricentis AI-based, continuous testing platform provides a new and fundamentally different way to perform software testing. An approach that’s totally automated, fully codeless, and intelligently driven by AI. It addresses both agile development and complex enterprise apps, enabling enterprises to accelerate their digital transformation by dramatically increasing software release speed, reducing costs, and improving software quality.

Sample Customers

Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman

McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest

December 2024

Free Report: PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest

Find out what your peers are saying about PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.

DOWNLOAD NOW

824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest report.

See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

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.