Azure Test Plans vs. Tricentis qTest

It works well for express test case implementation with a short duration. You can define the tests for two weeks and run the activities documenting the software errors and fixes to control the effectiveness of DevOps. The graphic reports give the idea of the backlog phases advances and errors detected. It needs improvement if you have a large test project and need to design financial budgets and control over costs of the test plan.

Incentivized

The qTest is well-suited for organizations transitioning to Agile or DevOps frameworks. It Streamlines test management with real-time collaboration and integrates with popular CI/CD tools. It excels in complex, large-scale projects needing centralized test cases management, traceability, and detailed reporting. However, organizations on a tight budget might find it cost prohibitive compared to simpler, low-cost alternatives.

Incentivized

• Multi test plan access
• Well structured and easy to use
• Integrates with other azure features to work seamlessly ,connecting the data flow

Incentivized

• Highly customizable: we were able to organize our test cases in unique ways that made our work easier.
• Connectivity with Jira: being able to pull requirements information in from Jira was a big point for us.
• Standalone tool: Being a standalone tool on a dedicated server, we were able to have access to our tests regardless of whether our Jira server was down.

Incentivized

• Graphic definition of the the Work Break Down Structure
• Gantt Chart to check the activity dependance and flow of the process
• Basic cost module to design test budgets.

Incentivized

• In requirements , we can't add multiple test cases at once, or search multiple cases at once, need to do one by one. Here actually qtest needs to improve.
• Linking cloud hosted qtest and on-premise TOSCA is very difficult especially when you are working with client system with security wall. It requires tunnelling software which is not recommended.

Incentivized

This has been a core QA management tool for our organization and integrates well with our other SDLC platforms (Azure DevOps/Jira/Katalon).

Incentivized

qTest is actually intuitive and user-friendly, despite my other scathing review aspects

Incentivized

The actual answer is 0. I have never experienced worse support, whether personal or professional

Incentivized

Again, supporting documentation could have been a lot better

Incentivized

We're doing a full continuous integration (CI), continuous delivery (CD), continuous testing (CT), security, delivery, and monitoring. They have been lately adding features to the services on a regular basis. Every two weeks, they add functionality to Azure DevOps Services to match it with what Azure DevOps Server or on-prem would offer. So, we continue to get more robust functionality. My favorite right now is that they are starting to open up the API availability within Azure DevOps Services.

Incentivized

Extensive integration options with various third-party tools, enabling seamless integration into existing workflows. Allows for flexibility and customization of workflows, fields, and permissions to adapt to unique testing requirements. Supports robust requirements traceability, ensuring comprehensive test coverage. Lastly management decisions too

Incentivized

• Pros: One stop solution for end to end traceability
• Pros: Exploratory testing used
• Pros: maximum coverage on multiple browsers, operating system combinations
• Cons: Integration with Non-Microsoft tools can be improved

Incentivized

• Better organization and centralization of test cases has led to more cohesive team collaboration
• Speed to delivery, deployments to production, are mostly maintained
• Performance issues have led to testing delays requiring the team to switch to other methods which contributed to QA bottleneck issues and sometimes even missed sprint commitments

Incentivized