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

PractiTest vs Zephyr Enterprise 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
17th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (21st)
Zephyr Enterprise
Ranking in Test Management Tools
7th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of PractiTest is 3.0%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Zephyr Enterprise is 5.2%, down from 7.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Zephyr Enterprise5.2%
PractiTest3.0%
Other91.8%
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.
JM
Director - Quality Engineering at a financial services firm with 501-1,000 employees
Integration with tool streamlines test management but needs better exporting options
I use it for test management within Jira This tool boasts an incredibly user-friendly interface that integrates seamlessly with other Jira tools. I particularly appreciate its intuitive features for designing test plans, creating test cases, and executing test cycles. Some areas for improvement,…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This is a good solution for a global transnational company."
"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."
"Converting a couple of these test plans into PractiTest was amazing and made a world of difference."
"Technical support of PractiTest is awesome. They are always ready to help in any time zone, which makes them stand out from others."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."
"In addition, we found PractiTest very user-friendly and customizable."
"Since we started using this product, our organization's testing functionality has really improved."
"If anyone is looking for a good, lightweight, flexible and agile test management product, I think they would do very well with Zephyr Enterprise."
"It has 90% of the basic features you need without having to pay a lot of extra money."
"The solution does its job well."
"It's very simple to use, which is beneficial, and it has 90% of the basic features you need without having to pay a lot of extra money."
"Zephyr Enterprise is a stable solution."
"It has many features, but the main things that we need are the test cycles and integration with automation because we have automation for the web and mobile applications. We use it for test case management to run the test cases and get the results. At this moment, it is fulfilling our requirements. We are able to get the test execution report and the test pass and fail report. This summary is delivered to our management."
"At this moment, it is fulfilling our requirements."
"It has integration with test automation tools."
 

Cons

"Yes, there are times when server is very slow in response."
"PractiTest practically requires a lot of sandboxing, demos with their team, and online tutorials."
"It does not offer server installation, only software as a service."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time."
"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 tracking tools."
"Needs to improve adding the ability to run tests multiple times and setting different parameters."
"For JIRA, in comparison to other solutions, such as TestRail, Zephyr is good, but it is not as good as DFS."
"It's difficult to export the test cases in Zephyr, especially with screenshots or attachments, making sharing test cases not very easy."
"We would like support for the agile and behavior-driven development (BDD) approaches."
"We are looking for advanced support with integration to CI tools. This is something which Zephyr does not have today."
"The reporting, and the ability to reorganize the test repository, which are a little stifling. There is definitely room for improvement there."
"Creating better default varieties of reporting would make the product much better and more popular."
"The only thing I have missed is an easy way to configure showing the latest execution results of all test cases linked in JIRA (story/epic), thus, receiving the state of a feature."
"The solution is not really stable. Sometimes in the past, some pages wouldn't load due to issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
"It costs a couple of thousand dollars for a little more than 125 users, per month."
"DFS is more expensive than Zephyr. DFS is around $32 per person, whereas Zephyr is $10 per person. There is a major difference in the price, which is the main reason why we are trying to shift to Zephyr."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Government
9%
Construction Company
8%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
8%
University
6%
Construction Company
5%
 

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 Business2
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Zephyr Enterprise?
Some areas for improvement, include its export capabilities. Exporting test cases, especially those with screenshots or attachments, can be cumbersome, hindering easy sharing and scalability.
What advice do you have for others considering Zephyr Enterprise?
I would recommend it mainly for manual testing and test management. Within Zephyrscale, they also have automated testing, however, I would recommend it only for test management. The overall rating ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
SmartBear Zephyr
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman
Hyundai, Fujitsu, Google, David Jones, Burger King, Ingenico, Websense, Dow Jones, Harris, Saab
Find out what your peers are saying about PractiTest vs. Zephyr Enterprise and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.