We performed a comparison between Tricentis qTest and Visual Studio Test Professional based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I found the reporting aspect to be the most valuable as it provided a comprehensive overview of the efforts needed and the workload for individual tests."
"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed..."
"The most valuable feature is reusing test cases. We can put in a set of test cases for an application and, every time we deploy it, we are able to rerun those tests very easily. It saves us time and improves quality as well."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."
"The main thing that really stuck out when we started using this tool, is the linkability of qTest to JIRA, and the traceability of tying JIRA requirement and defects directly with qTest. So when you're executing test cases, if you go to fail it, it automatically links and opens up a JIRA window. You're able to actually write up a ticket and it automatically ties it to the test case itself."
"The most important feature which I like in qTest manager is the user-friendliness, especially the tabs. Since I'm the admin, I use the configuration field settings and allocate the use cases to the different QA people. It is not difficult, as a QA person, for me to understand what is happening behind the scenes."
"One of the best documentation in the world."
"The solution is easy to use and they have also integrated with Microsoft."
"The whole suite is made for .NET development."
"Customization is the most powerful feature of this product."
"Visual Studio Test Professional is a very scalable solution."
"The most valuable features are tools like IntelliSense and ReSharper."
"The ability to quickly make your own components has been valuable."
"What I like most about Visual Studio Test Professional is the way people publish templates and publish integration."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented."
"I would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me."
"I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use. ALM's... Defects Module is really robust. You can actually walk through each defect by just clicking an arrow... But with the qTest Defects module you can't do that. You have to run a query. You're pretty much just querying a database. It's not really a module, or at least a robust module. Everything is very manual."
"I would appreciate some enhancements in the interface, maybe adding more color options."
"The database administration could be better; you should be able to choose new tools with the development environment in Visual Studio. It could be easier to use."
"The documentation is limited."
"The price could be improved."
"The product must provide more automation."
"The solution is quite expensive."
"There are too many features with the product and I would like there to be less."
"The server that we use is very slow so that is concerning for us."
More Visual Studio Test Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews while Visual Studio Test Professional is ranked 5th in Test Management Tools with 47 reviews. Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4, while Visual Studio Test Professional is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Tricentis qTest writes "Puts all our test cases in one location where everyone can see them. qTest also allows the segregation of different types of Testing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Visual Studio Test Professional writes "Customization is a key feature as is the ability to integrate with third-party services ". Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and Adaptavist Test Management for Jira, whereas Visual Studio Test Professional is most compared with TFS, Apache JMeter, Tricentis NeoLoad, SmartBear TestComplete and Telerik Test Studio. See our Tricentis qTest vs. Visual Studio Test Professional report.
See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.
We monitor all Test Management Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.