Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

TestRail 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

TestRail
Ranking in Test Management Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of TestRail is 10.1%, down from 13.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 14.4%, up from 13.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
TestRail10.1%
Tricentis qTest14.4%
Other75.5%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

StuartBarker - PeerSpot reviewer
A tool that provides effective test management and real-time reporting capabilities
I have faced some issues with the integration between TestRail and Jira where the status of tests is not displayed (in Jira) due to I suspect security settings on the browser. In a large corporate environment, it is not easily changed. The support wasn't particularly helpful. It would be great if I could create custom reports, ideally with a tool designed specifically for that.
SamuLehikoinen - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features
The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"You don't need to follow complex procedures to create a test run, test case, etc."
"The most valuable features of TestRail by Gurock are the user experience, it's very easy to learn. There is no learning curve needed to work on projects and manage the test cases, it is easy. Exporting and importing are simple."
"The API to support integration of the homemade automated testing tool."
"Reliable and stable. It is important that TestRail be up and running 24/7 as we have users around the world using it."
"The ability to time test runs gives the tester the ability to compare calculated times to actual times it takes for a test case to run."
"From a testing perspective, the management is awesome. I am able to do testing and then add the reporting and the evidence. It is fair in terms of the price that you're paying. You get what you're paying for."
"I was on the lookout for automation testing on the browser and I believe this tool is very interesting in that matter. The solution is useful for UI testing. You just need to add the URL that is to be checked."
"The most valuable features are the reporting in the dashboard and the general way in which we can create test runs is helpful."
"What I found most valuable in Tricentis qTest is that it doesn't require installation. You use it through the URL. It also has an excellent reporting feature."
"The test automation tracking is valuable because our automated testing systems are distributed and they did not necessarily have a single point where they would come together and be reported. Having all of them report back to qTest, and having one central place where all of my test executions are tracked and reported on, is incredibly valuable because it saves time."
"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 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 integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"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."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"The self-healing aspects and maintenance of scripts are much faster and quicker, and we are able to find better avenues and better productivity in terms of maintenance, which we can pass on to the customer."
 

Cons

"This solution has room for improvement. For example, some particular projects need to adjust access or add additional members and this isn't always possible. Role-based access would improve this."
"It would be nice if they would add an export to Word."
"It would be useful if it had its own issue management system. At the moment, it's purely a test management tool and you have to link to a defect management tool, like JIRA. It would be useful if there was an option to use its own defect management tool so that it's integrated and not two separate tools."
"The product is not focused on synthetic data creation. I would also like to see more integrations with other platforms."
"Better prediction of text."
"TestRail should improve its pricing."
"The reports should be more user-friendly."
"With TestRail, the APIs are there, but they may not be able to easily integrate with the Jenkins."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
"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 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 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 support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"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."
"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution is based on how many users you have per year. When you grow, it is segmented, For example, 10 to 25, you have a price, and more than 50, or 100, you need to take the enterprise license. I don't think we will reach this point."
"Negotiate the best deal you can."
"Pricing for small teams seems correct with respect to competitors."
"The product is not much expensive."
"I give the price a five out of ten."
"The product has a reasonable price in terms of the features."
"Its price is definitely not more. If they introduce automation, they can charge more."
"Use TestRail Cloud (online TR hosted server) and don't worry about maintenance or scalability. It saves a lot of cash and time."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"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."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"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 the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise4
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TestRail by Gurock?
Pricing is reasonable for TestRail. It offers good value for money.
What needs improvement with TestRail by Gurock?
In TestRail, there is significant difficulty with roles and rights. They are not in the mainstream. The person who has the license has all the rights, which is understandable, but TestRail needs to...
What do you like most about Tricentis qTest?
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.
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?
Customers are moving towards Tricentis due to their association with SAP. There is interest in understanding if there are connectors for converting UFT scripts to Tosca, as many customers are looki...
 

Also Known As

TestRail by Gurock
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Apple, Microsoft, Boeing, Intel, NASA, Amazon, HP, Samsung
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about TestRail vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.