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 3.0% mindshare in TMT, compared to Tricentis’s 7.8% 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

723 Views
405 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Tricentis qTest

Read 19 Tricentis qTest reviews

2,060 Views
1,566 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: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,311 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 (22nd)

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 March 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of PractiTest is 3.0%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 7.8%, down from 15.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Tricentis qTest	7.8%
PractiTest	3.0%
Other	89.2%

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

"Technical support of PractiTest is awesome. They are always ready to help in any time zone, which makes them stand out from others."

"This is a good solution for a global transnational company."

"Since we started using this product, our organization's testing functionality has really improved."

"Helped organise the manual test cases so they were documented correctly, which was invaluable as it allowed for reviewing and improving of test scripts so they could be followed by a number of different people which helped with resourcing."

"In addition, we found PractiTest very user-friendly and customizable."

"PractiTest gives us the opportunity to control the testing process efficiently and saves us a lot of time that we had to spend while using other tools."

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

"Converting a couple of these test plans into PractiTest was amazing and made a world of difference."

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

"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 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, which saves us time and improves quality as well."

"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."

"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."

"It has taken us to the next level, in a very positive way, in the management of our overall test cases."

"Overall, the solution has increased testing efficiency by a good 95 percent."

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

More Tricentis qTest pros

Cons

"Yes, there are times when server is very slow in response."

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

"Needs to improve adding the ability to run tests multiple times and setting different parameters."

"There are some features that I would like added: an option to export a part of tests with steps."

"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time."

"PractiTest practically requires a lot of sandboxing, demos with their team, and online tutorials."

"It does not offer server installation, only software as a service."

"We feel the integration between JIRA and qTest could be done even better. It's not as user-friendly as qTest's other features."

"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"I can't say that we've seen a decrease in critical defects in releases since we started using qTest, but we have more visibility into our test coverage, block test cases, daily activities, etc."

"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."

"Right now, on a scale of one to five, I would say the Insights reporting engine is a three because we are facing some performance issues."

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 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."

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

"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'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."

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

"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."

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

885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Government

11%

University

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

16%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Insurance Company

Healthcare 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

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs PractiTest

Compared 11% of the time

TFS vs PractiTest

Compared 10% of the time

Parasoft Development Testing Platform vs PractiTest

Compared 9% of the time

Jira vs PractiTest

Compared 8% of the time

OpenText Application Quality Management vs PractiTest

Compared 7% of the time

More PractiTest Competitors

Tricentis Tosca vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 16% of the time

OpenText Application Quality Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 13% of the time

TestRail vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 11% of the time

Zephyr Enterprise vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 7% of the time

QMetry Test Management vs Tricentis qTest

Compared 4% of the time

More Tricentis qTest Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites

March 2026

Download PractiTest product report

Buyer's Guide

Tricentis qTest

March 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

March 2026

Free Report: PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,311 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.