TestRail vs. Tricentis qTest

The integration with other tools, and their user friendly layout and design. It's very comfortable to use and is way better than other tools with the Automation Testing tools, thanks to the great API that is included. Sometimes the integration with Jira is a little faulty, but the links to that tool usually work well. It could be cool if it had a better following for the bug items that were registered on other tools.

Incentivized

Tricentis qTest integrates seamlessly with Jira, making it ideal for teams that manage user stories and defects in Jira while keeping test cases and execution in qTest. When paired with automation tools like tosca, Selenium, or WebdriverIO, qTest is excellent for aggregating both manual and automated test results in one place.

Incentivized

• Managing test plans and test cases
• Generation of test results
• Modularised way of storing tests

Incentivized

• As a fresher, when I started using qTest it was very handy and easy to understand.
• It helps us trace the test cases that are used to test the quality in a single location
• The main thing is its integration with JIRA as soon as we create a ticket we would be getting all the requirements in the qTest so it became easy for me

• Outstanding user bugs
• UI is clunky
• Things are not where you think they would be

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

As I am a tester, for me I found this tool to be new in terms of everything like the management of tests, plans, releases, reporting,etc. It is overall a good tool for test reporting and can be used for reference in the future. I liked several features of on the go placement of screenshots. Also I feel like the UI , the font, the color combination can be improved

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

TestRail definitely saves times. I work in a company that consists of several development teams, all of which have different processes. Some of the teams leverage test cases, some do not. I've noticed that the turn around time it takes for me to pick up a ticket, QA it, and then pass/fail/send feedback is much faster when there is a test case created as I'm not reading through ticket description/comments to figure out what needs to be QA'd.

Incentivized

All of them offer formidable solutions in the test management realm, but each one caters to different niche and need. qTest distinguishes itself with its deep integration capabilities, especially with Agile and DevOps tools, enabling streamlined CI/CD process. Its modern, user-centric interface contrasts with ALM's more dated appearance and complex setup. While TestRail provides a clean user experience and caters to a broad spectrum of business, qTest's scalability, from SMBs to large enterprises, stands out. PractiTest's cloud-based solution is geared towards mid-sized companies, but qTest's flexibility, advanced analytics, and robust reporting grant teams actionable insights. qTest' approach to a more holistic test management closely aligning with modern software development practices

Incentivized

• We are able to easily pull reports any time management would like to see them
• Jira integration makes it easy to attach to stories/defects and save time
• A quick overview at the system's health as a whole is easy to see from TestRail

Incentivized

• In comparison to other Testing tools, Tricentis qTest was the most expensive.
• We were able to quickly bring international users up to speed on how to use the tool.
• The ability to clone a project rather than create a new one from scratch was a valuable time saver.

Incentivized