Current (soon-to-be former) qTest User and Administrator
February 21, 2022

Current (soon-to-be former) qTest User and Administrator

Nick Larsen | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 1 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Tricentis qTest (formerly QASymphony)

qTest is our test case repository. We have a 2-way integration with Jira, which we use as our defect and requirements management software. We also use the Sessions module of qTest as our evidence collection tool. Finally, we report on test execution and test coverage from qTest to submit as a deliverable to our internal audit team.
  • The organization aspects of qTest are very good.
  • When Sessions does not interrupt testing by bogging down system resources, it is helpful.
  • Parameters is a great module that we have not taken full advantage of.
  • Customer support has been abysmal since Tricentis took over qTest.
  • Over time, it feels like the app is getting worse and worse from a performance, reporting, and integration perspective.
  • Returning to support, a user should not have to write an email to support learning how to file a ticket on the support portal. The support portal could be MUCH more user-friendly.
  • Locating CURRENT documentation for qTest is difficult. Once it is found, the documentation is confusing and often redirects to broken links. Recently, for example, there was verbiage that seemed to indicate that qTest was end-of-life. When I attempted to get clarification on this, Support sent me a link to the document that cause the confusion in the first place.
  • When we signed on to qTest, we had a dedicated relationship manager. That lasted until shortly after the Tricentis takeover. This was very important to me as I am a high-touch client.
  • The best value-add qTest has provided my team is Sessions. It has sped up our evidence collection vastly. The problem here is that Sessions can also be a system resource hog and slow testing down. So it can be a wash overall.
Jira configuration is fairly straightforward. We did have an ongoing Webhook issue (which I got ZERO support on) when attempting to connect to a unique Jira instance. This never got solved and we eventually gave up on the integration. Selenium is integrated via the command line and our automation lead got zero support on this integration. In order to finalize the integration, she worked with a support community outside of Tricentis. Browser Stack integration went smoothly.
I wish I could say that qTest improved visibility into our coverage, but the reporting aspects of qTest have changed so often and so drastically over our time using it that we have never really gotten a strong feeling for how much this visibility has increased. What's more, our internal audit team found it aggravating and confusing that my deliverables to them were frequently changing.
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 Xray had no organization when we used it. Spria Test was clunky and antiquated when we used it, so qTest felt more modern by comparison.

Do you think Tricentis qTest delivers good value for the price?


Are you happy with Tricentis qTest's feature set?


Did Tricentis qTest live up to sales and marketing promises?


Did implementation of Tricentis qTest go as expected?


Would you buy Tricentis qTest again?


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.

Tricentis qTest Feature Ratings

Centralized test management
Manage test hosts and schedules
Map tests to user stories
Test execution reporting
Defect management
Not Rated

Using Tricentis qTest (formerly QASymphony)

20 - Software testing and internal auditing.
3 - I and two individuals on our Help Desk support the software.
  • Requirements coverage and traceability
  • Evidence collection
  • Reporting
  • n/a. We will not be utilizing qTest after our current contract expires.
We will not be renewing.

Evaluating Tricentis qTest (formerly QASymphony) and Competitors

Yes - We replaced Xray. At the time, QASymphony owned qTest and was the reason we chose the tool. QASymphony was exceptional at its support and implementation assistance. As soon as Tricentis absorbed qTest, all of that disappeared and the application has seemingly gotten progressively worse and its support has gone to essentially nil.
Support was the most important factor.
I would have gone with any other tool.

Tricentis qTest (formerly QASymphony) Implementation

Again, supporting documentation could have been a lot better.
Change management was a minor issue with the implementation - Documentation for implementation was middling. In order to satisfy our change management needs, internal documentation creation was necessary.

Tricentis qTest (formerly QASymphony) Support

The actual answer is 0. I have never experienced worse support, whether personal or professional.
Quick Initial Response
Slow Resolution
Poor followup
Less knowledgeable
Problems left unsolved
Escalation required
Difficult to get immediate help
Need to explain problems multiple times
Support doesn't seem to care
This was never offered to me, but based on the abysmal level of support I got, I wouldn't have upgraded it anyway.
Yes - No. I raised an issue multiple times and was only referred back to a support document that provided steps that I had already attempted.

Using Tricentis qTest (formerly QASymphony)

qTest is actually intuitive and user-friendly, despite my other scathing review aspects.
Like to use
Relatively simple
Easy to use
Well integrated
Quick to learn
Feel confident using
  • Test case organization is nice
  • Test creation and execution are intuitive and straightforward
  • Integration with test automation