CucumberStudio vs Tricentis qTest comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
SmartBear Logo
39 views|18 comparisons
87% willing to recommend
Tricentis Logo
2,059 views|1,256 comparisons
100% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between CucumberStudio and Tricentis qTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, OutSystems and others in Rapid Application Development Software.
To learn more, read our detailed Rapid Application Development Software Report (Updated: April 2024).
768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The data table that helps in converting a single script to multiple test cases is very helpful.""The best thing is that a person without knowledge about the program can easily understand what happened in our testing process."

More CucumberStudio Pros →

"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless.""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.""Works well for test management and is a good testing repository.""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 integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good.""Being able to log into Defects, go right into JIRA, add that defect to the user story, right there at that point, means we connect all of that. That is functionality we haven't had in the past. As a communication hub, it works really well. It's pretty much a closed loop; it's all contained right there. There's no delay. You're getting from the defect to the system to JIRA to the developer.""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.""UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."

More Tricentis qTest Pros →

Cons
"I think it would be better if we could also do the reporting with CucumberStudio.""The reporting needs to be improved."

More CucumberStudio Cons →

"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum.""The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved.""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.""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 feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features. The JIRA integration with qTest needs to mature a lot... We need smarter execution with JIRA in the case of failures, so that the way we pull out the issues again for the next round is easy... Locating JIRA defects corresponding to a trait from the test results is something of a challenge.""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 support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better.""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."

More Tricentis qTest Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
Information Not Available
  • "The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
  • "Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
  • "It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
  • "We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
  • "We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
  • "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."
  • "For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
  • "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."
  • More Tricentis qTest Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
    768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:The best thing is that a person without knowledge about the program can easily understand what happened in our testing process.
    Top Answer:Presently, when I work with Selenium, I need CucumberStudio just to make my project readable to other people, and for reporting, I use Maven. I think it would be better if we could also do the… more »
    Top Answer:I recommend the solution as it's easy to use. I rate the solution seven out of ten.
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer: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.
    Top Answer:The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall… more »
    Ranking
    Views
    39
    Comparisons
    18
    Reviews
    1
    Average Words per Review
    378
    Rating
    7.0
    6th
    Views
    2,059
    Comparisons
    1,256
    Reviews
    3
    Average Words per Review
    761
    Rating
    8.7
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Hiptest
    qTest
    Learn More
    SmartBear
    Video Not Available
    Overview

    Formerly HipTest: CucumberStudio is the leading collaboration platform for BDD - an easy-to-use tool to define ideas, test code, and learn in production from real-time insight.

    Tricentis is the global leader in enterprise continuous testing, widely credited for reinventing software testing for DevOps, cloud, and enterprise applications. The Tricentis AI-based, continuous testing platform provides a new and fundamentally different way to perform software testing. An approach that’s totally automated, fully codeless, and intelligently driven by AI. It addresses both agile development and complex enterprise apps, enabling enterprises to accelerate their digital transformation by dramatically increasing software release speed, reducing costs, and improving software quality. 

    Sample Customers
    Cisco, Cardinal Health, Intuit, Smartbox, Accenture, Deliveroo
    McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
    Top Industries
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Educational Organization10%
    Comms Service Provider7%
    Financial Services Firm7%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm18%
    Insurance Company18%
    Computer Software Company18%
    Manufacturing Company18%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Financial Services Firm15%
    Computer Software Company14%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Insurance Company6%
    Company Size
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business28%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise55%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise18%
    Large Enterprise65%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business16%
    Midsize Enterprise12%
    Large Enterprise73%
    Buyer's Guide
    Rapid Application Development Software
    April 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, OutSystems and others in Rapid Application Development Software. Updated: April 2024.
    768,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    CucumberStudio is ranked 27th in Rapid Application Development Software with 8 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. CucumberStudio is rated 8.2, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CucumberStudio writes "An easy -to -use scalable cloud-based solution which needs some improvement with programming automation and stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tricentis qTest writes "Puts all our test cases in one location where everyone can see them. qTest also allows the segregation of different types of Testing". CucumberStudio is most compared with GitHub CoPilot, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail, Zephyr Enterprise and TFS.

    We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.