SpecFlow vs Tricentis qTest comparison

SpecFlow and Tricentis qTest are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. SpecFlow is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0, while Tricentis qTest is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.0. SpecFlow holds a 2.1% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis qTest’s 12.5% mindshare. Additionally, 75% of SpecFlow users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Tricentis qTest users who would recommend it.

SpecFlow

Read 4 SpecFlow reviews

450 Views
275 Comparison Views

75% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 19 Tricentis qTest reviews

1,790 Views
1,289 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

SpecFlow

Tricentis qTest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Tricentis qTest and SpecFlow are two prominent software testing tools, competing in the software testing category. Tricentis qTest appears to have the upper hand due to its comprehensive test management capabilities.

Features: Tricentis qTest offers extensive test management, automation capabilities, and support for large-scale projects. SpecFlow shines with BDD integrations, .NET framework compatibility, and seamless integration with development processes.

Room for Improvement: Tricentis qTest could benefit from better integration with third-party tools, a more intuitive system for managing test cases, and streamlined workflows. SpecFlow users desire better documentation, a smoother setup process, and enhancements in ease of use.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Tricentis qTest is praised for its smooth deployment and commendable customer support. SpecFlow has a straightforward deployment but occasionally requires technical knowledge, and customer service receives mixed reviews, with some users seeking quicker resolution times.

Pricing and ROI: Tricentis qTest is priced on the higher end but is considered a worthwhile investment due to its robust feature set. SpecFlow, being open-source, offers a cost-effective solution, though additional costs for integrations and commercial support may arise.

To learn more, read our detailed SpecFlow vs. Tricentis qTest Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

SpecFlow vs. Tricentis qTest

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 873,209 peers since 2012

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

10th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Tricentis qTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of SpecFlow is 2.1%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 12.5%, down from 13.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Tricentis qTest	12.5%
SpecFlow	2.1%
Other	85.4%

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

KreshenAmourdon

Software Automation Test Engineer at I2era

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.

Read full review

SamuLehikoinen

Partner Manager at Agiilit Oy

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.

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 of the solution is unit testing...It is also an easy-to-use and user-friendly product that can easily adapt to any framework."

"The initial setup is easy."

"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 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."

"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."

"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."

"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."

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

"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 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."

"Tricentis qTest brought benefits by providing all test cases in one central repository with easy access."

More Tricentis qTest pros

Cons

"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 would be improved with the addition of functionality reporting, which would be really helpful for automation testing."

"Regarding improvement, it would be good if SpecFlow could provide chain testing, which it currently doesn't allow."

"SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool."

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

"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."

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

"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."

"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."

"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."

"One of the things I noticed was the reporting part wasn't very good."

"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."

More Tricentis qTest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SpecFlow is open-source and free of charge."

"SpecFlow is an open-source product."

"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."

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

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

"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."

"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."

"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."

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

873,209 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

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

Healthcare Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	14

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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?

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs SpecFlow

Compared 100% of the time

More SpecFlow Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 34% of the time

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 23% of the time

TestRail vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 13% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 7% of the time

Panaya Test Dynamix vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 6% of the time

More Tricentis qTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

SpecFlow

October 2025

Download SpecFlow product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

October 2025

Download Tricentis qTest product report

Also Known As

SpecFlow+

qTest

Overview

SpecFlow is a testing framework that supports Behaviour Driven Development (BDD). It lets us define application behavior in plain meaningful English text using a simple grammar defined by a language called Gherkin.

Tricentis

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.

Tricentis

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

Buyer's Guide

SpecFlow vs. Tricentis qTest

September 2025

Free Report: SpecFlow vs. Tricentis qTest

Find out what your peers are saying about SpecFlow vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

873,209 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our SpecFlow 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.