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

QMetry Test Management vs Tricentis qTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

QMetry Test Management
Ranking in Test Management Tools
16th
Average Rating
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of QMetry Test Management is 2.1%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 16.4%, up from 9.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VinayKumar17 - PeerSpot reviewer
Helped with agile testing, provides exploratory testing and screen capture capabilities but visibility of test cases could be improved
QMetry has different aspects. It provides exploratory testing and screen capture capabilities while running tests. It has a recorder integrated. If you run a test on an application, it will record every aspect of it. For example, if you execute a user scenario, it will record what the user does within the application and generate a script. This can also be used for quick automation. Moreover, if we have an automation framework, QMetry can integrate with it. QMetry can also handle load testing in web-based applications. We have integrated it with a bug-tracking system, but not for automation. It was not difficult to integrate it. This integration was mainly for reporting purposes, such as creating reports directly from QMetry.
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

"The best benefit was for new hires. We used to write our test cases in simple English within QMetry, so anyone who knew English could understand them. This helped with training new hires."
"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 solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time."
"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..."
"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."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"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."
 

Cons

"For me, the visibility could be improved. When executing a test case, you needed to open it separately to read the steps."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"QMetry was cheaper than Xray, which was based on the number of users."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"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 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."
"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 $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."
"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.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for QMetry Test Management?
QMetry was cheaper than Xray, which was based on the number of users. It was around $10d per user, while QMetry was closer to $4 per user. So it's about half the price.
What needs improvement with QMetry Test Management?
QMetry team upgrade features based on the number of users experiencing certain problems. If fewer users encounter an issue, they may not address it. They have a different concept where feature deve...
What is your primary use case for QMetry Test Management?
We use it for test case management. We used it to define valid and invalid inputs and to create tests for both scenarios. This involved manual testing, such as boundary value analysis and exceeding...
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?
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
qTest
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Healthland, Stanford University, Solid Fire, Proteus, Epocrates, Cognifide, Exo, Holmes Corporation, Global Communication, University of Sydney
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, Microsoft and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: January 2025.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.