GoCD vs PractiTest comparison

Thoughtworks and PractiTest are both solutions in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category. Thoughtworks is ranked #15 with an average rating of 7.3, while PractiTest is ranked #21. Thoughtworks holds a 0.2% mindshare in ALM, compared to PractiTest’s 0.4% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Thoughtworks users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of PractiTest users who would recommend it.

GoCD

Read 7 GoCD reviews

144 Views
95 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

PractiTest

Read 7 PractiTest reviews

174 Views
112 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

GoCD

PractiTest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

GoCD and PractiTest both enhance software delivery with effective management tools but through different functions: GoCD in continuous delivery and automation, and PractiTest in comprehensive test management and organization. PractiTest gains the upper hand for users prioritizing detailed test processes due to its robust test tracking capabilities.

Features: GoCD offers robust pipeline visualization, advanced workflow modeling, and a variety of integration plugins for continuous delivery facilitation. PractiTest features a centralized test management solution, real-time reporting, and traceability, providing a comprehensive view of testing activities.

Room for Improvement: GoCD could enhance its plugin variety and ease of customization. User interface improvements and more advanced visualization features might benefit novice users. PractiTest may improve in handling complex test scenarios and automating more processes. It could offer richer integration options and enhanced analytics sophistication for detailed insights.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GoCD's flexible deployment model supports on-premise or cloud setups, backed by documentation and community-driven support. PractiTest's cloud-based deployment model ensures a simple setup, backed by dedicated customer service for faster onboarding and immediate support.

Pricing and ROI: GoCD attracts development teams with its low initial costs benefiting from delivery automation to reduce operational expenses over time. PractiTest, although incurring higher initial costs, justifies its expense with detailed analytics and traceability features that enhance testing efficiency, leading to greater long-term ROI in test management.

To learn more, read our detailed GoCD vs. PractiTest Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

GoCD vs. PractiTest

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 858,038 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

GoCD

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

15th

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Build Automation (17th), Release Automation (11th)

PractiTest

Ranking in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

21st

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Test Management Tools (18th)

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites category, the mindshare of GoCD is 0.2%, down from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PractiTest is 0.4%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

Featured Reviews

Nishant Narayan Singh

DevOps Architect at Cognizant

Simplifies the pipeline process, but the access control system needs enhancement

One area of product improvement is the access control system. It is difficult to assign different access levels because it relies on separate keys for developer and admin access, which could be simplified. The folder structure is another aspect that could be enhanced, as all jobs are displayed on a single page without the clear organization seen in Jenkins. Implementing a more structured approach to organizing jobs would improve user experience. AI could simplify job creation. For example, instead of manually editing pipelines as code, an AI tool could allow users to input variables and automatically generate the required jobs. It would help reduce human errors, such as issues that arise from incorrect edits in large code files.

Read full review

Dave Carter

Test Team Lead at a computer software company with 501-1,000 employees

Flexible and intuitive with easy reporting, and good support that is instantly available through chat

It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time. This is not an issue if you only have one bug tracker but we can potentially use different tools for different projects. As an example, if you connect PractiTest to Jira for one project, that's the one you have to use for all projects. We had a requirement to connect with Jira for one project, and a different tool for another, project but it was unable to accommodate that unfortunately. I would therefore like to see it easier to integrate with bug tracking tools at project level which would give each project the opportunity to use a different bug tracker if required.

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

"Permission separations mean that we can grant limited permissions for each team or team member."

"The most notable aspect is its user interface, which we find to be user-friendly and straightforward for deploying and comprehending pipelines. We have the ability to create multiple pipelines, and in addition to that, the resource consumption is impressive."

"The UI is colorful."

"GoCD's open-source nature is valuable."

"The most valuable feature is the way the libraries are structured so that they were not folder driven."

Cons

"The documentation really should be improved by including real examples and more setup cases."

"The aspect that requires attention is the user management component. When integrating with BitLabs and authenticating through GitLab, there are specific features we desire. One important feature is the ability to import users directly from GitLab, along with their respective designations, and assign appropriate privileges based on that information. Allocating different privileges to users is a time-consuming process for us."

"It is difficult to assign different access levels because it relies on separate keys for developer and admin access, which could be simplified."

"The tool must be more user-friendly."

"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different tracking tools."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is an open-source solution and it is inexpensive."

"It's an open-source and free tool."

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

858,038 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Retailer

12%

Real Estate/Law Firm

Computer Software Company

24%

Financial Services Firm

21%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about GoCD?

The UI is colorful.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GoCD?

The product is free of cost.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GoCD?

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

GitLab vs GoCD

Compared 33% of the time

Jenkins vs GoCD

Compared 28% of the time

GitHub Actions vs GoCD

Compared 19% of the time

Tekton vs GoCD

Compared 11% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs GoCD

Compared 10% of the time

More GoCD Competitors

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs PractiTest

Compared 38% of the time

Tricentis qTest vs PractiTest

Compared 33% of the time

Jira vs PractiTest

Compared 29% of the time

More PractiTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

May 2025

Download GoCD product report

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

May 2025

Download PractiTest product report

Also Known As

Adaptive ALM, Thoughtworks Go

No data available

Overview

GoCD is an open source continuous delivery server created by ThoughtWorks. GoCD offers businesses a first-class build and deployment engine for complete control and visibility. It was designed for continuous delivery and the concepts essential to this practice are built in at the core.

Thoughtworks

Manage your QA and Testing process, controlling your testing tasks while getting complete visibility into your results, and most importantly releasing your products in a professional way

Professional end to end QA management for your manual and automation testing.

Create your manual tests and organize them based on cycles, sprints, etc.
Seamlessly integrate your manual testing with your automation and CI processes.
Reuse tests and correlate results across different releases and products.
Release your products with confidence and control.

PractiTest

Sample Customers

Ancestry.com, Barclay Card, AutoTrader, BT Financial Group, Gamesys, Nike, Vodafone, Haufe Lexware, Medidata, Hoovers

Canonical, SAS, Amobee, Play Buzz, Abbott, Aternity, Zerto, Freeman

Buyer's Guide

GoCD vs. PractiTest

June 2025

Free Report: GoCD vs. PractiTest

Find out what your peers are saying about GoCD vs. PractiTest and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

858,038 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our GoCD vs. PractiTest report.

See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.

We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites 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.