Adaptavist Test Management for Jira Reviews

Our software development process primarily uses Adaptive Test Management for Jira to monitor real-time risks across all stories and sprint planning. Additionally, we use it to create action plans for high-priority risks.

Its valuable features include the risk count feature, which helps us track how many projects are at risk or not at risk. Another feature is the risk metrics, which allow us to understand and communicate how risks are distributed by viewing them on both the X and Y axes. Additionally, the add-on configurations are very flexible, letting us define risks in a way that suits our needs. These features are particularly useful for us.

The product's reporting and metrics capabilities are useful for our project management. From a reporting standpoint, we get updates on a weekly or sprint basis, which helps us track how many projects are at different risk stages and who is responsible for what. This provides a high-level view of our progress during sprints and at the epic level, especially if an epic spans multiple sprints or quarters. We can also export these reports into PDFs and other formats, which is handy. As for metrics, we don’t track metrics separately because the reporting gives us the insights we need to understand performance and decide on the next steps.

It’s difficult to pinpoint cost reductions directly, as the impact on costs is more of a long-term effect. However, Adaptavist Test Management for Jira has been beneficial in other ways. The dashboard and reporting features help us identify and address red flags, providing a proactive view of potential challenges before they become issues. Previously, we would deal with problems as they arose, but now we can anticipate and manage challenges more effectively.

I would like to see some improvements in Adaptive Test Management for Jira. First, having a recommendation engine or feature that guides handling risks more intuitively rather than relying on manual processes would be helpful. Second, enhancing the connectivity with third-party tools like Teams or Slack would be valuable.

One challenge with integrating Adaptavist Test Management for Jira into workflows is ensuring it accurately tags and incorporates all relevant stories and epics. Sometimes, it’s unclear if the tool considers all dependencies and backlog items, which can affect how risks are assessed. However, it sometimes seems to miss this high-level perspective, which can be a limitation based on how the product is designed. This has been a concern for those who use it regularly, although I don’t manage these aspects personally.

I have been using the product for four to six months. 

I rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten. 

My company has 15-30 users for the product. I rate its scalability a seven out of ten. 

The knowledge base has pretty good articles and resources. I have not contacted their support team much because we usually contact our internal IT team for any challenges, and they help us. So far, there haven't been any major issues. I would say the system is largely self-explanatory.

Positive

The tool's deployment was not challenging and took a couple of days to complete. 

Our internal team handled the deployment. 

The tool's pricing is a bit expensive, considering the kind of risk analysis and visibility we want, given that it's built on top of the Jira platform and other Atlassian products. It's priced slightly higher than similar products, maybe five to ten percent more. So, while it is expensive from a value delivery standpoint, it's comparable to its competitors. I'd rate the price an eight out of ten because, as a customer, I'd always prefer a lower price. There are no extra expenses beyond the standard licensing fee unless there are premium features we haven't encountered yet.

I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution for test management.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to integrate with any automation tool, including cloud solutions.

They should improve the solution's granular reporting feature. It could be more intuitive. It doesn't serve delivery and management purpose.

They should integrate the solution with AI. So that, in case of test failures, it will help us know the reason instead of debugging the history of the test. The tool should automatically indicate the reasons for failure. It will save a lot of time. 

We have been using the solution for three years.

I rate the solution's stability as a six. We face issues while analyzing KPI insights and reports.

It is a scalable solution. We have 30-40 users of the solution in our organization. The scalability depends on the number of test cases and the number of automation and integrations it manages. I rate the scalability as a seven.

The solution's support team could work faster. They have many issues in the backlog that need to be solved. They assure to rectify and improve the shortcomings in the next version.

We have used HP, IBM, and a few open-source tools. We switched to Adaptavist as per our organization's requirement.

The complexity of the initial setup depends on the size of the project. If you are migrating from another solution to Adaptavist, it needs a lot of API connectors. So it is time-consuming. In comparison, a new setup takes little time.

We have a centralized team in charge of the deployment process.

I advise the users to organize their test suits properly and understand the solution's functionality to get better reports and insights. The solution is not worth it compared to other vendors. I rate it as a six.

One of Jira's capabilities is as a plugin test management tool and that's what we use it for. It's a full agile life cycle management product. We are currently increasing usage by bringing in other organizations from within our company to use the tool. They are transitioning from either older versions of the tool or from other tools. I'm a company manager, dealing with quality assurance engineering.

Test Management for Jira provides a repository for our test cases. We are a software development organization, so we create test cases. You input the test steps, define the preconditions, and state the expected results. Then you can group those test cases together into cycles and plans and track the execution of them. 

For now, the queries are not well integrated into the rest of Jira. They use a different syntax so you have to change how you present queries when you're looking at test cases versus everything else. 

Firstly, I would like to see the query capability integrated into the base query of Jira so I can query test cases the same way I query anything else in Jira. The second feature I would like to see is more visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, little pie charts and bar charts and histograms. There's a limited number now and I'd like to see more of them.

I've been using this solution for two years.

The solution is very stable, no problems at all.

Capability for scalability is basic, it's not as sophisticated as I would like.

I've never had to use technical support. 

We migrated from Microsoft Test Manager because we wanted to use one tool to manage the development and test product process, as well as to manage our test cases. Jira allows us to have the two together rather than using  two different tools.

Initial setup was fairly straightforward because we had to migrate from another existing system. So migrating from something else always makes things a little more difficult but it was fine.

We implemented through an in-house team that had prior experience with Jira and we used them to assist us. They provided all of the technical expertise and trained our experts and they continue with the day-to-day management of the system and support us. Deployment took about three months and the most complicated part was migrating the existing test cases from Microsoft Test Manager into the Jira test manager. So we had to do a lot of manual scrubbing of data and cleaning up the test cases. We are an organization of 300 people with one person full-time working on maintenance.

I would suggest people look closely at the capabilities of each of the three or four different test management plugins available to Jira and see which ones have the features that are most important to them. You have to be vigilant and make sure that people follow agreed procedures in creating test cases and properly fill in all the required fields because the tool does not force you or require you to do that.

I would rate this product a seven out of 10 because it provides a lot of capability although there is room for improvement. 

We use Adaptavist Test Management for different internal projects. We also use it to establish business workflows. We are in the finance business, so this program is also used for contracts and to follow certain projects. The program has different features that we share between our marketing and engineering departments. This allows us to follow different topics and features. 

There isn't only one use case that I find valuable - all the features are very important for us.

Something that needs to improve, is the model of the licensing. For instance, if you have two packs from two servers, you need buy two licenses. That doesn't make sense. I would also like to have more integration.

I have been using Adaptavist Test Management for about three years now.

The program is very stable, and that is why we have so much success with it. 

The program is scalable. We have more than 100,000 users in our company, but in my part of the department, we only have about 500 users. We have a small team or about three people who are responsible for the maintenance. 

We have our own team of technical experts, so we haven't used the program's customer service yet.

We use different solutions for different clients. Some clients want to use other solutions, so we use different products simultaneously.

The initial setup was really easy. Setting everything up took us around two weeks, and after that, we needed some time to scale everything, but it didn't take that long. 

I am not sure what the licensing costs are, but it is based on the number of users and we pay on an annual basis. 

We've tried Open Source and JIRA because a lot of our users prefer using JIRA.

My advice to others would be to know what features they find most important and to stay pragmatic and start with a proof on concept. On that side, it works very well. On a scale from one to ten, I will rate this product a nine. Additional features I would like to see to make it a ten would perhaps be more integration.

We use the on-prem deployment model. We need it for writing and executing test cases. In the future, we plan to integrate it with an API. 

I like the feature that has Microsoft services. The feature enables you to reuse your steps but you should make sure to create separate test cases. It's a practical feature because you can reuse these steps but it's best to create some test cases somewhere because you cannot apply it directly to steps 3 or 2,3,4 for example, if you have six steps in your first case. So you should create a separate test case for it and then you should add it to some test cases. A bad thing is that you have is traceability between a task in JIRA and the test cycle. A problem is that developers or product owners won't have the ability to see test cases to make sure that everything is covered. You need more licenses which cost more money. 

I plan to make some tests stand for my view, where I will want to play with the API to start to implement some of the tests because the is the plan to use it as main debt management system. Previously, we used a quality center from IBM but it was old technology. The main point that I want to get from this solution is to integrate this after a test run of the test and see results on JIRA, not on the CI system. When they need to provide some lab reports, of course, we can use a separate solution but business users, product owners will not be able to use it. They don't need such technical details, they need an open task in JIRA to check what failed what passed. We also want it to improve the sync. 

I don't like that you need to use a lot of tabs. One test case takes 15-20 minutes and on Zephyr is take about 5-10 minutes. They should shorten the time it takes by not using many tabs. There should be more customization abilities. One of my teams can need to create about a hundred test cases and they will need to spend twice time than with Zephyr. The estimation for creating this case will be increased twofold compared to Zephyr.

My impression of the stability is very positive. 

We have around one hundred users using this solution.

We don't use technical support. We have an office in Austria that provides us with solutions. Also, this solution is pretty simple and user-friendly. We don't really need help with it. 

For the client, Adpatavist is very good.

I would rate it between a seven and eight out of ten.