PractiTest vs Tricentis qTest comparison

PractiTest and Tricentis are both solutions in the Test Management Tools category. PractiTest is ranked #17, while Tricentis is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.7. PractiTest holds a 2.9% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 8.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of PractiTest users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Tricentis users who would recommend it.

PractiTest

Read 7 PractiTest reviews

671 Views
362 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 19 Tricentis qTest reviews

1,977 Views
1,483 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

PractiTest

Tricentis qTest

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Tricentis qTest and PractiTest are two competing test management tools. PractiTest is seen as superior due to its features, providing a better overall value.

Features: Tricentis qTest offers comprehensive test management capabilities, integrations with various tools, and efficient test execution management. PractiTest is known for its flexibility, customizable workflows, and advanced reporting capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Tricentis qTest users report performance speed issues, a need for a more intuitive reporting system, and occasional bugs in the interface. PractiTest users suggest better automation integration, enhanced documentation, and improvements in navigation ease.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Tricentis qTest provides swift deployment but has mixed customer support experiences. PractiTest users experience smooth deployment and reliable customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Tricentis qTest is more affordable with good return on investment. PractiTest is pricier but justified by its robust feature set and customization options.

To learn more, read our detailed PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 882,594 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

PractiTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

17th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (23rd)

Tricentis qTest

Ranking in Test Management Tools

3rd

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of PractiTest is 2.9%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 8.1%, down from 15.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Tricentis qTest	8.1%
PractiTest	2.9%
Other	89.0%

Test Management Tools

Featured Reviews

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

reviewer2356440

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.

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

"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."

"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."

"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 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 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 solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."

"The self-healing aspects and maintenance of scripts are much faster and quicker, and we are able to find better avenues and better productivity in terms of maintenance, which we can pass on to the customer."

"The initial setup was very easy."

More Tricentis qTest pros

Cons

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

"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."

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

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"We faced challenges when trying to consolidate data in a repository, and similar features were lacking in qTest. It also does not allow for task tracking or calculating time spent on tasks, which affects project timelines."

"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

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

"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."

"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."

"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."

"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."

"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

882,594 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Government

10%

University

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Healthcare Company

10%

Insurance Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	2
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	1

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	3
Large Enterprise	14

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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...

See all answers

Comparisons

TFS vs PractiTest

Compared 12% of the time

Parasoft Development Testing Platform vs PractiTest

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs PractiTest

Compared 11% of the time

TestRail vs PractiTest

Compared 10% of the time

Jira vs PractiTest

Compared 9% of the time

More PractiTest Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 20% of the time

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 14% of the time

TestRail vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 13% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 6% of the time

QMetry Test Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 3% of the time

More Tricentis qTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

January 2026

Download PractiTest product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

January 2026

Download Tricentis qTest product report

Also Known As

No data available

qTest

Overview

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

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

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

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

Buyer's Guide

PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest

February 2026

Free Report: PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest

Find out what your peers are saying about PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

882,594 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our PractiTest 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.