Tricentis qTest (formerly QASymphony) provides enterprise-level agile testing tools giving businesses visibility and control needed to ensure application quality in fast-paced development environments. Tricentis and QASymphony merged in summer 2018.
As I am not the actual decision maker of which tool to purchase. I have always liked the Tricentis qTest tool. Decision has been made by the top management, The tool has proven is value and for the Same reason it is still being used.
Still evaluating. TestRail seems to be a far better solution but we need to solve migration issues.
Verified User
Engineer
Chose Tricentis qTest
looking at the positive features like 3rd party integration, the Tricentis qTest stacks up along with providing the custom build and event driven workflows with open-source solutions (Azure, DevOps, Teams etc). Manages and schedule automated testing along with creating report …
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, …
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, …
Tricentis is easy to use and user friendly. Less time consuming with lot of good utilities. And for better test management. qTest also stacks up better than the above tools due to its efficiency, test case interface and test execution interface. Excellent comments area and …
- It was not our decision to use qTest as a tool, as this was a management decision. - Since I have used many Test Management Tools I can compare for e.g The Reporting and Statistics in qTest is very impressive.
Tricentis qtest is well suited as it serves the purpose for both quality assurance and business management. It is very simple for non technical users to write test cases in free hand and they don’t have to bother about traceability as it is automatically handled by this …
I have worked on Jira, but i found it more difficult interface to handle. It was not user friendly. The defect management was also not impressive. qTest experience actually helped me to take decision while evaluating.
I'm not the decision maker, so I can't provide objective comparison criteria, but I can say that Tricentis QTest is a reliable tool for Test Management.
The main tool we compared to Tricentis qTest Explorer was the "Steps Recorder" that comes with Windows. We selected Tricentis qTest Explorer because, at least at the time, Steps Recorder would sometimes skip recording arbitrary steps, which didn't meet our needs.
Quality Assurance Manager - Application Development & Support
Chose Tricentis qTest
None of our previous tools we listed in the available drop-down options. We had previously used Spira Test and Xray as our test repositories. We are currently evaluating Test Rail, Zephyr, PractiTest, and others.
From an organizational perspective, qTest is better than Xray as …
We felt like for the feature set and due to the fact it was mid-range on the cost, it was a good choice. It also has some other plugins which we plan to utilize at some point like Tosca.
We selected QASymphony because even though all the testing software are Agile compatible test management tools that offer complete coverage of the whole process of quality control: requirements, testing and management of test cases, problem management and reports. It offers …
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.
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.
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.
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
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