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

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs IBM Engineering Test Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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

Adaptavist Test Management ...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
20th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Engineering Test Manage...
Ranking in Test Management Tools
14th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is 2.0%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Engineering Test Management is 3.2%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Engineering Test Management3.2%
Adaptavist Test Management for Jira2.0%
Other94.8%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RS
Director of Product at Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
Has dashboard and reporting features that help us identify and address red flags
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.
HZ
Lead Systems Tester at Government of Ontario, Canada
Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team
IBM Rational has the RFT, which is rational functional testing. We do test automation with rational functional testing. So after we do that, we can put in all the code, then I can build it, then put all the test cases, and put all the build code for the shared location. And then rational that shared location means that RQM has access to the shared location. So, when we execute, if a test case is automated, we can run it from RQM. We need to have the environment ready for it to execute. Once we have that, then we can select the task case. So, by clicking on one button, the other environment is automatically plugged in. Then test results will be automatically transferred back to our RQM. So, in RQM, we can view it, and it is integrated. So we can run the test and the automation from RQM, and the test results will come back. Azure DevOps first test case is there, but then we tried to use Selenium to do half automation. Still, we realized that it wouldn't have the integration. We could do something in the pipeline, but it fires the Selenium test automation code. But then the test results won't be brought back or added to AzureDesk DevOps. That's something that I do hope that there can be another other system that can have this kind of integration. RQM can be improved because it's not related to our server and could be faster. We need to find out how much database storage is needed and keep increasing it. We heard that the latest version of RQM can clean up some old ones and give the same test result. But that one feature we are yet to use. It's a setting that we can set up, and then it goes automatically or gives me the choice to do it manually.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It is a scalable solution."
"The program is very stable, and that is why we have so much success with it."
"My impression of the stability is very positive."
"Test Management for Jira provides a repository for our test cases."
"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."
"The program is very stable and scalable."
"You can group test cases together and track the execution of them."
"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."
"Project realization has been carried out much faster."
"The technical support has been pretty good."
"The product is very fast, very reliable as a solution, and well structured so you can customize it within your business workflows."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need, and it has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"In the latest version, Global Configuration is the most promising feature as it allows the user to maintain different versions of the same artifact in different streams."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"Testing can be linked with requirements, which makes traceability very easy."
 

Cons

"Something that needs to improve is the model of the licensing. For instance, if you have two packs from two servers, you need to buy two licenses."
"They should work on integrating the solution with AI."
"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."
"I don't like that you need to use a lot of tabs. One test case takes 15-20 minutes and on Zephyr it takes about 5-10 minutes."
"Capability for scalability is basic, it's not as sophisticated as I would like."
"Lacking visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, pie charts, bar charts and histograms."
"The user interface can be improved; it is the same interface that I have been seeing for the past so many years, whereas the other CLM modules changed significantly."
"Overall, the solution is not user-friendly, and you need a very technical person on it in order to run it properly."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Support of parameter needs to be easier."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing is rather expensive for those that have many users."
"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."
"Each license includes 12 months of customer support. A free 90-day trial of the software is also available."
"The licenses of these tools (the whole CLM package) is very costly as compared to other vendors' tools."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
30%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
8%
Healthcare Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise7
 

Also Known As

No data available
IBM Rational Quality Manager, Rational Quality Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, John Lewis, Trip Advisor, Netgear,  Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Sapient
Ehrhardt, Cisco Systems, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, CareCore National, ItaÒ BBA, Barr
Find out what your peers are saying about Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. IBM Engineering Test Management and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.