Tricentis qTest

Formerly QASymphony

Tricentis qTest is suited for our QA teams who are technical however not very well suited for the Business Testers who are used to working with Jira to enter test cases and manage their testing. A simplified UI would be better suited for these users.

Poor support and follow-up on resolution of issues.

Video conferences and the ability to get live training sessions help.

qTest is well suited for software development teams both running Agile, Waterfall, or hybrid models. It's well suited also for any teams who use Jira for stories and defect tracking and want to have seamless integration.

I've only used the Tricentis qTest Explorer portion of Tricentis qTest (I recall some of the test management stuff being too clunky and prescribed to fit our workflow, so we chose a different tool). It's well suited for automatically capturing screenshots of browser-based or Windows-based applications during test sessions. However, we've had difficulty getting it to work well in other contexts, such as inside a Virtual Machine or on Linux.

I believe that Tricentis qTest is optimal for organizations that have well-established quality practices, large budgets, and a solid idea of how they want to maintain their test cases. It might also be more suited to organizations that have a more waterfall work style because of the costs associated with multiple licenses required for product, development, business, and QA elements to individually collaborate. In our experience, this tool is not appropriate for smaller quality practices, that are trying to get a feel for how they want to organize and maintain their test cases.

I would recommend spreadsheets for test case management before I would recommend qTest. The primary reason for this is the Tricentis support model. Second, when comparing the costs of qTest versus almost any other competing tool at a similar tier of functionality, qTest is vastly more expensive. For that added expense, I would expect exceptional support and/or functionality, and that is just something you don't get here.

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

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

For the primary use case, I described in the first answer qTest satisfies those needs when it comes to building and organizing test cases. qTest is also suited to be fine for executing and providing status updates on test cases. qTest is not known for innovation, primarily after the Tricentis acquisition. UI could use additional user experience feedback. qTest does not appear suitable for properly handling the storage of years worth of test cases/suites/runs. Performance is inadequate. There does not appear to be any improvements insight for the performance or usability of the application.

Integration with our Azure DevOps Scrum boards can be improved.

The product itself is mostly well suited for our company. We are not a large, enterprise establishment, and it works fine for our typical software development scenarios. We don't really have any exceptional cases where it does not.

It is very appropriate to connect all test cases with the user's history and connect with all JIRAs with TCs. By saving all the test documents in one place it gives us a lot of order and ease of use allows to run my test cases in different browsers and have the execution of the test for each execution separately and very useful your automation script for our requirement, but I'm still exploring in that area. should have some built-in tool to capture the screenshots.