No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

PractiTest vs Tricentis qTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

PractiTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
15th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (22nd)
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of PractiTest is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 5.6%, down from 15.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis qTest5.6%
PractiTest2.9%
Other91.5%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

DC
Test Team Lead at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees
Flexible and intuitive with easy reporting, and good support that is instantly available through chat
It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time. This is not an issue if you only have one bug tracker but we can potentially use different tools for different projects. As an example, if you connect PractiTest to Jira for one project, that's the one you have to use for all projects. We had a requirement to connect with Jira for one project, and a different tool for another, project but it was unable to accommodate that unfortunately. I would therefore like to see it easier to integrate with bug tracking tools at project level which would give each project the opportunity to use a different bug tracker if required.
reviewer2772063 - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality Specialist 2A at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Has supported centralized test case management but needs better reporting and integration features
One good feature of Tricentis qTest was that users can directly upload test cases in the tool itself. Unlike ALM, where we had a plugin in Excel and it used to hang very much, this was a really cool feature where users can upload test cases directly into the tool. I have used Tricentis qTest's integration with Jira, but that's why we migrated to Octane tool. There were some hiccups, such as when we updated anything in Tricentis qTest, it wasn't really reflecting in our release container or release manager. I have utilized the customizable dashboards with Tricentis qTest, though they weren't very interactive. I have seen measurable benefits with Tricentis qTest in terms of time-saving and resource-saving. It's definitely time-saving, and also in terms of space, users can have everything centralized instead of having it all in Excel locally, which can be maintained in the repository of Tricentis qTest.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Technical support of PractiTest is awesome. They are always ready to help in any time zone, which makes them stand out from others."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"Helped organise the manual test cases so they were documented correctly, which was invaluable as it allowed for reviewing and improving of test scripts so they could be followed by a number of different people which helped with resourcing."
"In addition, we found PractiTest very user-friendly and customizable."
"PractiTest gives us the opportunity to control the testing process efficiently and saves us a lot of time that we had to spend while using other tools."
"This is a good solution for a global transnational company."
"Since we started using this product, our organization's testing functionality has really improved."
"Converting a couple of these test plans into PractiTest was amazing and made a world of difference."
"It is the single source for repository and traceability."
"All the features we have used are pretty impressive and good."
"We have also seen a reduction in critical defects, by half now, over the last three months, and overall, the solution has increased testing efficiency by at least 50 percent."
"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"Overall, the solution has increased testing efficiency by about 60 percent, compared to what they were doing before."
"Tricentis qTest brought benefits by providing all test cases in one central repository with easy access."
"On a weekly basis, for reporting it has definitely saved at least 50 percent of our time, if not more."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
 

Cons

"It does not offer server installation, only software as a service."
"There are some features that I would like added: an option to export a part of tests with steps."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time."
"Yes, there are times when server is very slow in response."
"Needs to improve adding the ability to run tests multiple times and setting different parameters."
"PractiTest practically requires a lot of sandboxing, demos with their team, and online tutorials."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"I wouldn't say a lot of good things about Insights, but that's primarily because, with so many test cases, it is incredibly slow for us. We generally don't use it because of that."
"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."
"Reporting shouldn't be so difficult. I shouldn't have to write so many queries to get the data I'm looking for, for a set of metrics about how many releases we had. I still have to break those spreadsheets out of there to get the data I need."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"I can't say that we've seen a decrease in critical defects in releases since we started using qTest, but we have more visibility into our test coverage, block test cases, daily activities, etc."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"Based on whatever I heard, I can say that Tricentis qTest is a little costlier than other test management tools, like Jira, Zephyr, or Xray."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"We signed for a year and I believe we paid $24,000 for Flood, Manager, and the qTest Insights. We paid an extra for $4,000 for the migration support."
"For me, pricing for Tricentis qTest is moderate, so that's a five out of ten. It's more affordable than my company's previous solution, which was Micro Focus ALM."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
8%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Insurance Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise1
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tricentis qTest?
The solution is expensive. For the features that are available, depending on the volumes of licenses we get, we are able to get better discounts as strategic partners of Tosca. We can pass some ben...
What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?
One of the things I noticed was the reporting part wasn't very good. It was hard to customize the dashboards in Tricentis qTest, and there were limitations in the dashboard. There may be missing fe...
What is your primary use case for Tricentis qTest?
The main use cases for Tricentis qTest are for test management, to keep test cases and execute those. Overall, centralized test management with Tricentis qTest was beneficial for the team's product...
 

Also Known As

No data available
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.