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

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira 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

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
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 Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is 2.0%, down 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%
Adaptavist Test Management for Jira2.0%
Other92.4%
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.
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

"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"You can group test cases together and track the execution of them."
"The program is very stable, and that is why we have so much success with it."
"The program is very stable and scalable."
"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."
"Overall, it's better than Quality Center in the ways that I have explained."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"Overall, the solution has increased testing efficiency by a good 95 percent."
"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."
"The solution works very well for test management and it also automates a lot of the testing functions so that you don't have to manage them in Excel spreadsheets."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"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."
 

Cons

"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."
"Lacking visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, pie charts, bar charts and histograms."
"Capability for scalability is basic, it's not as sophisticated as I would like."
"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."
"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."
"They should work on integrating the solution with AI."
"The installation of the software could be streamlined."
"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."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive."
"I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features."
"Overall, it gets the job done, but it's a struggle to do it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The licensing is rather expensive for those that have many users."
"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."
"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 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."
"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 $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."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
909,099 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%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Insurance Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
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

IBM, John Lewis, Trip Advisor, Netgear,  Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Sapient
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.