Copado vs. Tricentis qTest

When we have a large organization and number of changes and deployments are more than we should go for Copado. As we know it is a paid managed package and the cost is high so for dealing with fewer deployments it is not preferable to buy. Copado is well suited for users who don't have much technical understanding. So those users can see the User interface select the changes that need to be deployed by selecting the metadata. From Git operation to deployment all is handled by Copado itself. Copado has reduced the efforts for creating the package.xml and direct deployments can be done within a few clicks. Another Major aspect is that it can be directly synced with Jira or Azzure board from where the user stories will be synced and actions can be performed accordingly. For small organization, Copado can be expensive and to set up and maintain we need a technical person to do so.

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

• Metadata Deployments
• Data Deployments
• Salesforce CPQ deployments that require a lot of various Data
• Transferring deployments between teams.

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

• Back promotions are sometimes difficult and behave in a weird manner
• After the deployment to production next changes in the pull request shows all the changes from the previous release as well
• Cannot be used through mobile

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

Flosum is a downgrade for sure and I do not recommend it. Gearset is an upgrade and my preferred solution. Gearset has simplified the deployment path and makes it very easy to move between Salesforce instances. If there are any difficulties with Gearset they also have the best customer support for any deployment tool I've tried. Overall I'd say Gearset is #1, Copado #2 and Flosum a distant #3.

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

• It has reduced the efforts to create package.xml manually and deploy the changes
• Another positive impact is that we can track the commits to which org they have reached in an organized way and we don't need to maintain them separately
• For setting Copado it take a lot of time and training is required for the complete setup which is time-consuming

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