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
20th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Test Design Automation (2nd), AI-Augmented Software-Testing Tools (12th)
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
3rd
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 January 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of ConformIQ Creator is 2.6%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 8.7%, down from 15.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis qTest8.7%
ConformIQ Creator2.6%
Other88.7%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1518657 - PeerSpot reviewer
QE Manager at Capgemini
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.
reviewer2356440 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
User stories and test artifacts migrate seamlessly to innovative management tools
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 looking to make this transition. We have developed capabilities for automated migration from ALM to Tricentis qTest without any loss of data. However, for UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available. From a project perspective, there have not been many challenges with Tricentis products. The main improvement area would be developing a connector to move UFT scripts to Tosca, which would enable quicker and easier movement for customers. This would aid faster adoption of Tosca and ease the financial pressure on clients who currently need to invest in rewriting scripts.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Though optimized and automated test generation is the core functionality, the product's integration with other tools sets it apart."
"The tool has the ability to integrate with various requirement management, test management, and version control tools."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"qTest helps us compile issues and have one place to look for them. We're not chasing down emails and other sources. So in the grand scheme of things, it does help to resolve issues faster because everyone is working off of the same information in one location."
"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 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."
"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 integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"Tricentis qTest brought benefits by providing all test cases in one central repository with easy access."
 

Cons

"It would be helpful to have a feature in the tool's UI to map object locators within the system."
"I would like to see the output data optionally used as input for the model, as further action in the flow."
"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."
"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."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
"One of the things I noticed was the reporting part wasn't very good."
"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."
"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."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"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 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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"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."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
10%
Insurance Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise14
 

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

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: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.