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

TestRail 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:
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
TestRail users had mixed support experiences, with some finding it responsive but ineffective, while others relied on online resources.
No sentiment score available
Tricentis qTest support is responsive and helpful, but users sometimes experience delays and limitations, rating it six out of ten.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
6.1
TestRail users seek better integration, enhanced reporting, improved usability, faster support, UI improvements, and more competitive pricing.
Sentiment score
5.2
Tricentis qTest requires improvements in Insights performance, JIRA integration, Defects module robustness, interface design, and report generation.
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
TestRail is efficient and dependable for small to medium user bases, easily scalable, though minor issues may occur at larger scales.
Sentiment score
8.2
Tricentis qTest scales well globally, integrates seamlessly with tools, and supports diverse teams with minimal maintenance due to its cloud-based nature.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
TestRail is priced annually per user from $300 to $400, with discounts and monthly plans available, plus extra costs for on-premise.
No sentiment score available
Tricentis qTest costs $1,000-$2,000 per license annually, higher than Jira and Zephyr but justified by advanced features.
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Users rate TestRail's stability highly, experiencing no significant issues, and are satisfied with its performance.
Sentiment score
8.3
Tricentis qTest is highly stable with rare downtimes, minor performance issues, and consistently meets user needs with strong ratings.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
7.5
TestRail excels with robust reporting, JIRA integration, user-friendly interface, flexible test management, and effective real-time tracking tools.
Sentiment score
8.2
Test automation excels with JIRA integration, ease of use, test case reusability, insightful reporting, and scalability for large projects.
 

Categories and Ranking

TestRail
Ranking in Test Management Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
6th
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 November 2024, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of TestRail is 13.1%, down from 13.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 14.5%, up from 10.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

StuartBarker - PeerSpot reviewer
A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities
I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira where the status of tests is not displayed (in Jira) due to I suspect security settings on the browser. In a large corporate environment, it is not easily changed. The support wasn't particularly helpful. It would be great if I could create custom reports, ideally with a tool designed specifically for that.
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Healthcare Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

TestRail by Gurock
qTest
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Apple, Microsoft, Boeing, Intel, NASA, Amazon, HP, Samsung
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about TestRail vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.