Eggplant Test vs Tricentis qTest comparison

Keysight Technologies and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. Keysight Technologies is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.0, while Tricentis is ranked #3 with an average rating of 8.3. Keysight Technologies holds a 4.7% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 15.1% mindshare. Additionally, 85% of Keysight Technologies users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

Eggplant Test

Read 18 Eggplant Test reviews

3,807 Views
381 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 18 Tricentis qTest reviews

1,871 Views
1,328 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Eggplant Test

Tricentis qTest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Tricentis qTest and Eggplant Test are both software testing tools with significant market presence. Tricentis qTest leads in features and pricing, while Eggplant Test has superior functionality.

Features: Tricentis qTest is known for comprehensive test management capabilities, integration with multiple development tools, and robust reporting features. Eggplant Test excels in advanced automation, cross-platform testing, and AI-driven testing methodologies.

Room for Improvement: Tricentis qTest needs better scalability, improved performance during peak usage, and enhanced customer support. Eggplant Test requires an intuitive learning curve and stronger integration with popular third-party tools.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Tricentis qTest provides a straightforward deployment process but has occasional complexities needing support, with helpful yet slow customer service. Eggplant Test offers smooth deployment and strong customer support but faces delays in complex issue resolution.

Pricing and ROI: Tricentis qTest is seen as cost-effective with strong ROI due to its features and lower setup costs. Eggplant Test is more expensive but justified by advanced automation features and substantial long-term ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Eggplant Test vs. Tricentis qTest Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Eggplant Test vs. Tricentis qTest

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 peers since 2012

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

Eggplant Test

Ranking in Test Management Tools

9th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM) (13th), Test Automation Tools (13th)

Tricentis qTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of Eggplant Test is 4.7%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 15.1%, up from 12.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

Tayyaba Noreen

Student at SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY

Empowers effective test automation with comprehensive platform coverage and scalability

There was no free trial in it. So, I studied it through a page that tells how it works. It will be good if a free trial is provided for users. Moreover, I would like to give some feedback on the installation process. There are other tools that are much easier to install and get started with. Eggplant could improve its installation process.

Read full review

SamuLehikoinen

Partner Manager at Agiilit Oy

Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features

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 experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features would be the image recognition and the OCR."

"The features that we like the most are the developer interface and the ability to quickly develop and deploy tests."

"Eggplant Test is valuable due to its OCR technology, which is independent of underlying technologies and can identify applications based on labels such as 'username' and 'password'."

"Everything is happening on the layout or display that is used by the user. Eggplant prompts processes, like 'click here,' or 'look for this image.' Eggplant makes it possible for QA people and BAs, working in the actual display, to check if the software is providing the right images, the right text, and the right results. They don't have to go inside the code or to the TCP/IP layer. Everything is happening at the highest level."

"Its scalability is good. It is useful for desktop applications, and it also uses OCR and does image recognition."

"We did see a massive return on investment from using Eggplant."

"We are able to now automate tests, which so far have been manual."

"GUI testing is the strength of the tool. The tool works as expected, and the support response from eggPlant, as a company, has been quick and substantial."

More Eggplant Test pros

"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."

"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."

"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."

"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."

"The initial setup was very easy."

"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."

More Tricentis qTest pros

Cons

"If one area could be improved, it would be some of their documentation. In particular, some of their online help and user support documentation is a little bit out of date and could be revised and updated on a more frequent basis. Other than that, I haven't really found any issues or problems."

"I would like to see standardized actions already built into Eggplant. For example, "wait eight seconds". That way, I wouldn't need to create it as an action. Right now, I have to program that wait and describe it as an action so that everybody knows it is an action that waits eight seconds... That way, somebody who is not familiar with programming processes like "if-else", or "for", or "while", would be able, from the first moment, and without programming, to put some easy-to-use, standardized, actions in place."

"They need to update the Linux. I think it's kind of an outdated Java Swing application."

"The execution times are a little slower, and the two-system architecture that we currently follow could be better replaced with a one-system architecture."

"In terms of additional features, it would be helpful to have one package for all testing. You have the manager, the AI, then you have functional, and about 10 different packages for installing."

"The language is too specific; it is just for Eggplant."

"The reporting function is a bit shallow. The solution does not offer very comprehensive reporting in terms of your test results. The reporting time and the logs are very high level as well. These areas need improvement."

"It has low productivity."

More Eggplant Test cons

"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."

"I would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me."

"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."

"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."

"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."

"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."

"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."

More Tricentis qTest cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This solution is expensive when compared to the market. However, the reason it is more expensive is because of its stability, high performance, and for its support of any technology."

"End-to-end testing isn't possible for us because of the licensing problems. It's very expensive, so we only have two development/execution licenses."

"Eggplant Test is a very expensive solution."

"Make a smart decision about the number of developer- and execution-only licenses you purchase to maximize your budget. We found that going heavier on execution-only licenses has been a way to reduce our costs and maximize our ability to benefit from the software."

"It probably has a yearly license."

"It is scalable, but it is a matter of money in the pocket. You can scale it, but then you have to have additional licenses. The licensing approach of eggPlant is not the best."

"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."

"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."

"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."

"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."

"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."

More Tricentis qTest pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Computer Software Company

10%

Healthcare Company

Financial Services Firm

13%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

11%

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

How do I choose between Selenium HQ and Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence?

Selenium HQ’s biggest advantage is that it is customizable. Its other most valuable feature is that the driver interface is really helpful and user-friendly; Selenium HQ makes it easy to navigate t...

See all answers

What do you like most about Eggplant Manager?

The solution is a stable one.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Eggplant Manager?

The price of Eggplant Test is on the higher side, but the benefits it provides make it worth using.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Tricentis qTest?

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 looki...

See all answers

Comparisons

Tricentis Tosca vs Eggplant Test

Compared 20% of the time

Qt Squish vs Eggplant Test

Compared 12% of the time

Selenium HQ vs Eggplant Test

Compared 11% of the time

SmartBear TestComplete vs Eggplant Test

Compared 10% of the time

UiPath Test Cloud vs Eggplant Test

Compared 8% of the time

More Eggplant Test Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 33% of the time

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 24% of the time

TestRail vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 14% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 8% of the time

Panaya Test Dynamix vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 5% of the time

More Tricentis qTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Eggplant Test

August 2025

Download Eggplant Test product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

July 2025

Download Tricentis qTest product report

Also Known As

Eggplant Digital Automation Intelligence, Eggplant DAI, Eggplant Automation Cloud, Eggplant Manager, Eggplant Mobile, Eggplant Customer Experience Insights

qTest

Overview

Across every industry, digital transformation is top of mind. New methods of developing software are driving fast change, and test teams are feeling the pressure. Increasing demand to release faster while maintaining the highest levels of quality is making the testing process more complex and harder to scale.

With AI-powered testing, Eggplant’s test and automation intelligence delivers the coverage you need to optimize the user experience, speed up release cycles, and improve your quality assurance process. Discover a fast, secure, and easy-to-use solution that tests any kind of software on any platform or device.

Keysight Technologies

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.

Tricentis

Sample Customers

FUJIFILM Group, NEC Personal Computers

McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone

Buyer's Guide

Eggplant Test vs. Tricentis qTest

July 2025

Free Report: Eggplant Test vs. Tricentis qTest

Find out what your peers are saying about Eggplant Test vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Eggplant Test vs. Tricentis qTest report.

See our list of best Test Management Tools vendors.

We monitor all Test Management Tools 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.