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

SpecFlow 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

SpecFlow
Ranking in Test Management Tools
11th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of SpecFlow is 1.6%, down from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 14.4%, up from 13.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis qTest14.4%
SpecFlow1.6%
Other84.0%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

KreshenAmourdon - PeerSpot reviewer
An automation solution with good integration capabilities that needs to focus on providing an option for chain testing to its users
In our company, we need to maintain the scripts of the product daily, and in case of failures, we need to check out the scripts. I would recommend the product to those planning to use it based on both they are planning to build. If you are going for unit testing or small scripts, then you can go with SpecFlow. I don't have much experience with the solution. It is a good and straightforward product. It is also an easy-to-use and user-friendly product that can easily adapt to any framework. I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.
SamuLehikoinen - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features
The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved.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 experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.

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 of the solution is unit testing...It is also an easy-to-use and user-friendly product that can easily adapt to any framework."
"SpecFlow's best feature is the ability to add additional layers to the programming."
"One of the most valuable features of SpecFlow for us is its risk identification capabilities."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The self-healing aspects and maintenance of scripts are much faster and quicker, and we are able to find better avenues and better productivity in terms of maintenance, which we can pass on to the customer."
"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."
"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."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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."
"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."
"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

"SpecFlow would be improved with the addition of functionality reporting, which would be really helpful for automation testing."
"I'd prefer in TFS if we could be writing test cases, not in the old classical version. We should be writing in Gherkin and then automatically have it convert that Gherkin test case into SpecFlow feature files."
"SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool."
"Regarding improvement, it would be good if SpecFlow could provide chain testing, which it currently doesn't allow."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"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."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
"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."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SpecFlow is open-source and free of charge."
"SpecFlow is an open-source product."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
"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."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
871,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Healthcare Company
18%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Non Profit
9%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Healthcare Company
9%
Insurance Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about SpecFlow?
One of the most valuable features of SpecFlow for us is its risk identification capabilities.
What needs improvement with SpecFlow?
In terms of improvement, SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool. While it offers a balanced flexibility, setting it up migh...
What is your primary use case for SpecFlow?
In our development workflow, we use SpecFlow as a BDD framework to bridge the communication gap between business and development teams. We create Given-When-Then scenarios in plain language using G...
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?
The solution is expensive. For the features that are available, depending on the volumes of licenses we get, we are able to get better discounts as strategic partners of Tosca. We can pass some ben...
What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?
Customers are moving towards Tricentis due to their association with SAP. There is interest in understanding if there are connectors for converting UFT scripts to Tosca, as many customers are looki...
 

Also Known As

SpecFlow+
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, Caterpillar, Siemens, Charles Schwab, IBM, Deloitte, Accenture, Philips, Dell, Deutsche Bank
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about SpecFlow vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
871,688 professionals have used our research since 2012.