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

ConformIQ Creator 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

ConformIQ Creator
Ranking in Test Management Tools
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (3rd), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (23rd)
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of ConformIQ Creator is 1.2%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 16.0%, up from 10.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1518657 - PeerSpot reviewer
Feature-rich stable tool with multiple options to control output, good integration with other tools, and knowledgeable support team
The core functionality of the tool is automated test generation of optimized test suite; the tool has extensive list of options for the same. The product's integration with other tools sets it apart. It has integrations with many upstream (for requirements mapping) and downstream (export of test cases to various tools) products. It is like "plug-and-play". For any customized downstream tool, like our proprietary automation framework, support is provided for custom development. It is has features - Business AD - to use in Agile implementations. The latest version seems to have support for BDD/Gherkin as well, which we have not used much.
Sudipto Dey - PeerSpot reviewer
It doesn't require installation because you can use it through the URL; it's user-friendly and has an excellent reporting feature
The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better. There's a feature I want to document on the Tricentis Idea Portal for Tricentis qTest, which I hope to see in the next version of the tool. It's a feature available in Micro Focus where you execute a test, and then on a spec level, you mark it as pass or fail. Then at the overall level, Micro Focus will automatically mark the test as a pass if all steps passed or failed, even if one step failed. However, here in Tricentis qTest, you still need to mark the overall level of the test cases. It's not automated, unlike what you have in Micro Focus. If Tricentis adds that feature in Tricentis qTest, it will make life easier for testers.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The tool has the ability to integrate with various requirement management, test management, and version control tools."
"Though optimized and automated test generation is the core functionality, the product's integration with other tools sets it apart."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"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 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 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."
"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."
"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 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."
 

Cons

"Even though the 4.1 version is a far-improved version from its earlier avatars, the performance of test generation is still an issue on real-time models we have."
"I would like to see the output data optionally used as input for the model, as further action in the flow."
"It would be helpful to have a feature in the tool's UI to map object locators within the system."
"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."
"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."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"The Insights reporting engine has a good test-metrics tracking dashboard. The overall intent is good... But the execution is a little bit limited... the results are not consistent. The basic premise and functionality work fine... It is a little clunky with some of the advanced metrics. Some of the colorings are a little unique."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"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 a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
44%
Computer Software Company
10%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
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.
What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?
Tricentis qTest needs improvement in its repositories' functionality. Unlike Azure, it does not have repositories to upload scripts. Additionally, it lacks features like task addition and tracking ...
 

Also Known As

Conformiq Creator, Conformiq Transformer
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alcatel-Lucent, Avaya, Daimler, Ericsson
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about ConformIQ Creator vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.