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

Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs UiPath Test Cloud comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
10th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
UiPath Test Cloud
Ranking in Test Management Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (3rd), Mobile App Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Adaptavist Test Management for Jira is 2.9%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of UiPath Test Cloud is 3.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RS
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.
Deborah Yarosh - PeerSpot reviewer
Can be used by non-developers, and saves us time, but the manual testing needs improvement
UiPath’s Test Suite manual testing doesn’t work for our organization based on how the QA Analysts do their manual testing and the artifacts that are needed for deployment. The QA Manager needs to track which tests have been completed, the success rate, and other relevant information. The ability to have manual tests show up in multiple projects is a requirement that is not easily done in Test Suite. We have submitted the following enhancements request to UiPath and are waiting for them to address these issues before migrating our manual testing to the UiPath Test Suite platform. * Ability to import manual test cases from an Excel Spreadsheet. * Ability to create release folders and have manual tests under the folders (sub-folders are also needed). * Ability to copy tests between projects (manual and automated). * Ability to execute manual test cases in any order and skip tests if needed. * Ability to assign and see who has been assigned to test cases – need to know who created the test case and who executed the test case as they could be different people. * Ability for the QA manager to see which test cases have been run and which haven’t as well as which ones were successful, and which weren’t. * Ability for the QA manager to track defect cycles for a particular release. * Improving Search functionality – must enter the exact test case name in current search functionality. * Ability to extract key data for artifacts for Release Management or Audit* Test Set or Individual Cases, * Include Test Results (passed / failed), * Include how many iterations a test case went through until it passed.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"It is a scalable solution."
"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."
"The detailed logging is invaluable."
"It's effective at testing whatever automation we've built or making sure the automation we've built is working fine."
"UiPath's tools are generally designed for business users, so they can be as simple or as complex as needed."
"We are finding bugs and defects much faster."
"Test Suite has multiple tools that are fully integrated. It has everything you need to record your test cases, generate your documentation, and integrate synthetic data with your Orchestrator. I like the integrated aspect of it. The biggest advantage of UiPath is that it not only tests but also integrates with all the other services to offer a complete package."
"We could use it for Oracle and SAP and it did help significantly."
"UiPath Test Cloud definitely helps free up time for other projects for our engineers."
"UiPath Test Suite is user-friendly and operates as a low-code platform."
 

Cons

"Lacking visual gadgets that go on a dashboard, pie charts, bar charts and histograms."
"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 is take about 5-10 minutes."
"UiPath’s Test Suite manual testing doesn’t work for our organization based on how the QA Analysts do their manual testing and the artifacts that are needed for deployment."
"The product releases sometimes have issues."
"More precise logging would be appreciated."
"They could improve the visualization of the product."
"We are facing problems specifically with Desk Manager."
"UiPath needs to improve its Test Manager feature. Defect management and reporting also need improvement."
"Accessing the full functionality of the Test Suite manager, including the dashboard, requires a tenant license."
"The pricing isn't as low as other options."
 

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."
"Its price is a bit high."
"I consider it expensive. I would rate it a seven out of ten for pricing. It's priced per license on an annual basis. Our customers usually pay around 30K to 35K for five licenses, which is priced per year."
"I wasn't involved in the negotiations for the UiPath Test Suite, so I have no information on its pricing."
"One robot license costs 1,500 euros."
"UiPath Test Suite is a cost-effective solution. Orchestrator is the most expensive UiPath module, costing around $20,000, but you don't need to purchase Orchestrator to use Test Suite. You can buy a nonproductive version that costs about $2,400. It's a better value than other products I've seen."
"It is a little bit more expensive than Selenium, but it provides value for money. There are multiple types of licenses such as the Test Suite license, Studio Pro license, Test Manager license, and Test Robot license. The overall cost estimation is 13,800 dollars."
"It represents good value for the investment."
"The cost of a UiPath Test Suite license for five users is over $10,000 USD."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
38%
Computer Software Company
26%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
5%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Adaptavist Test Management for Jira?
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 slig...
What needs improvement with Adaptavist Test Management for Jira?
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 manua...
What do you like most about UiPath Test Suite?
Being able to use regular expressions, activities, and attributes is valuable.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for UiPath Test Suite?
I consider it expensive. I would rate it a seven out of ten for pricing. It's priced per license on an annual basis. Our customers usually pay around 30K to 35K for five licenses, which is priced p...
What needs improvement with UiPath Test Suite?
They can improve the dashboard by adding some widgets for reporting. Also, currently, they don't have defect management modules. If they could add defect management, it could work independently wit...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Test Suite
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, John Lewis, Trip Advisor, Netgear,  Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Sapient
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Adaptavist Test Management for Jira vs. UiPath Test Cloud and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,236 professionals have used our research since 2012.