Tricentis qTest

Formerly QASymphony

The HP ALM tool is the best known tool in the market, with maximum features but at an extra cost. If Tricentis qTest can have simple features along with some advanced features, it will be a game changer for Tricentis qTest.

Poor support and follow-up on resolution of issues.

There are various plus point features, starting with providing data and stats with documentations of all test scenarios and results of the regression testing along with bug reports. Third party test integrations with tools like Jira and tracking all the test cases for every requirement. Saving efforts and time while executing the large batches of the test cases in various environments. Can be accessible via browser and supporting various OS like windows irrespective of version.

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.

in my opinion or as per my experience it is well-suited for large-scale software projects, Agile and DevOps environments, comprehensive test case management, test automation integration, requirements traceability, collaboration-focused teams, and organizations requiring customization.
It may be less appropriate for small teams or projects, non-technical users, limited budgets, simple test cases, non-Agile environments, low test automation usage, and situations where advanced reporting isn't necessary. Choosing qTest depends on your specific testing needs, team size, budget, and project methodologies, with a consideration of how well the tool aligns with your requirements. Regular assessments are recommended to ensure it remains suitable for evolving needs.

Sometime it work very slow and this affects the user experience

retention of test cases and executed test results. Capture of automated and manual test results for submission to regulatory agencies.

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.

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.

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.

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.