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

TFS 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

TFS
Ranking in Test Management Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
99
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (7th)
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 TFS is 6.3%, down from 8.4% 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 (%)
Tricentis qTest14.4%
TFS6.3%
Other79.3%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Pmurki@Micron.Com Praveen - PeerSpot reviewer
Version control is excellent and good for code review, branching, merging strategies and more
I've worked with TFS for source control and Agile project management. We also used TFS for seamless team collaboration and tracking.  I used TFS for a couple of years. Now, we use Azure DevOps. It's a wonderful tool for source control and CI/CD pipelines It's a really valuable tool for…
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The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved.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

"The most valuable feature of TFS is its compatibility with Microsoft Windows systems. We have predominantly Microsoft solutions and TFS work well."
"The traceability is valuable. While managing the workflows, it was always nice to have that traceability from requirements and all the way through design. It integrates with Microsoft Test Manager, and you can have everything that is related to a requirement attached to it."
"The most valuable features of TFS are the test plans. We can reproduce reusable test plans in test automation. We have a lot of queries and this feature is very useful."
"The tool's installation is straightforward."
"Build definitions and releases within the product. allow us to put our latest applications in the field."
"Version Control: TFS offers both the centralized “TFVC” version control technology as well as the distributed “Git” version control technology."
"I have found almost all of the features valuable because it integrates well with your Microsoft products. If a client is using the entire Microsoft platform, then TFS would be definitely preferable. It integrates with the digital studio development environment as well."
"We use TFS for forecast management."
"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 integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"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."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"Access and permissions are confusing when attempting to include basic manual testing functionalities."
"I would like to see TFS improve its web interface as there are some limitations with IDs and the integration behind it and with open-source tools like VS Code."
"There might be some complexity in its off-cloud versions."
"The user interface could improve and test management was not useful in TFS."
"Its pricing could be improved."
"I'd like to see some kind of visualization tool for TFS that would make life much easier."
"Since it is Microsoft, it is technology agnostic, thus it does not really fit into various different technologies in the organization."
"More options could be provided from the perspective of requirements management, which would help product owners to use the tool effectively."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We faced challenges when trying to consolidate data in a repository, and similar features were lacking in qTest. It also does not allow for task tracking or calculating time spent on tasks, which affects project timelines."
"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."
"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."
"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive. This is a scenario about which I've already made a suggestion to qTest. When people leave the company, I should be able to delete them from qTest. I shouldn't have to have so many users."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"TFS is more competitively priced than some other solutions."
"TFS is on the higher side, but if you intend to use the tool as a complete ALM tool, it will reduce your costs in the long run."
"TFS is expensive, and the licensing costs are yearly. I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten."
"There are different prices depending on the configurations. There is a free version available. There is no extra cost for the solution. However, the hardware could be something that needs to be considered."
"The tool's licensing costs are yearly."
"I was working with the engineering team, and that was not under my umbrella. From what I can remember, its license was yearly. They had the licenses on a per-user basis, and they included MTM."
"I wouldn't say that this tool is cheap or expensive but in the middle."
"Microsoft products are always expensive. Obviously, they are quality products, but it would be helpful if there was a reduction in price. But compared to other vendors, I think the cost is high."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
"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."
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
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Healthcare Company
6%
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 Business17
Midsize Enterprise25
Large Enterprise64
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

Which is better - TFS or Azure DevOps?
TFS and Azure DevOps are different in many ways. TFS was designed for admins, and only offers incremental improvements. In addition, TFS seems complicated to use and I don’t think it has a very fri...
What do you like most about TFS?
Microsoft's technical team is supportive.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TFS?
While I do not know the exact pricing, TFS is likely more expensive than GitLab.
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...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Team Foundation Server
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Vendex KBB IT Services, Info Support, Fujitsu Consulting, TCSC, Airways New Zealand, HP
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about TFS vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.