We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Quality Manager and Tricentis qTest based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Test Management Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Reusability and integration capabilities which make it a great choice for organizations that use a variety of development tools and platforms."
"It allows user to add whichever widget (predefined) based on the need. It has integration with CCM and RM to achieve traceability."
"RQM's best features are integration with test automation and performance testing."
"Integration with the other professional tools is a very strong advantage, so that we can have a traceability between the requirements and defects in Rational Team Concert. That's the most important aspect."
"RQM is something that we use everyday, so it has to be up and running, otherwise we would lose everything."
"The one feature that has not allowed us to switch to any other solution is the integration with functional testing."
"Latest features include versioning of testings which can be great when used for multiple releases of a product."
"The most valuable feature is the RFT because it allows us to automate manual test cases."
"I like the way it structures a project... We're able to put the test cases into qTest or modify something that's already there, so it's a reusable-type of environment. It is very important that we can do that and change our test data as needed..."
"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."
"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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 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."
"While RQM allows for running tests and viewing results, it could be further enhanced in terms of performance and speed."
"Integration capabilities with other vendors' tools should improve."
"I think it's fine from a performance perspective but usability is something that needs improvement."
"RQM could be improved by adding a feature that allows test requirements to be selected when creating a task plan."
"Currently, the user interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"Organizing the test cases is tedious. There is no mechanism to keep and maintain the test cases as hierarchy. This should be seriously addressed."
"Mainly Quality Assurance and DevOps, but of course the whole company and management areas with more knowledge of quality and client success approach."
"It would be helpful if we could assign a hierarchy to a group of test cases."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"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."
"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 support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"Reporting shouldn't be so difficult. I shouldn't have to write so many queries to get the data I'm looking for, for a set of metrics about how many releases we had. I still have to break those spreadsheets out of there to get the data I need."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"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."
IBM Rational Quality Manager is ranked 7th in Test Management Tools with 11 reviews while Tricentis qTest is ranked 6th in Test Management Tools with 16 reviews. IBM Rational Quality Manager is rated 7.6, while Tricentis qTest is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Quality Manager writes "Scalable and Stable solution with good integration function and support team". 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". IBM Rational Quality Manager is most compared with OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail and Zephyr Enterprise, whereas Tricentis qTest is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText ALM / Quality Center, TestRail and Zephyr Enterprise. See our IBM Rational Quality Manager 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.
