No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

PractiTest vs Tricentis qTest comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

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
15th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites (22nd)
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of PractiTest is 2.9%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 5.3%, down from 14.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis qTest5.3%
PractiTest2.9%
Other91.8%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

DC
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.
reviewer2772063 - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality Specialist 2A at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Has supported centralized test case management but needs better reporting and integration features
One good feature of Tricentis qTest was that users can directly upload test cases in the tool itself. Unlike ALM, where we had a plugin in Excel and it used to hang very much, this was a really cool feature where users can upload test cases directly into the tool. I have used Tricentis qTest's integration with Jira, but that's why we migrated to Octane tool. There were some hiccups, such as when we updated anything in Tricentis qTest, it wasn't really reflecting in our release container or release manager. I have utilized the customizable dashboards with Tricentis qTest, though they weren't very interactive. I have seen measurable benefits with Tricentis qTest in terms of time-saving and resource-saving. It's definitely time-saving, and also in terms of space, users can have everything centralized instead of having it all in Excel locally, which can be maintained in the repository of Tricentis qTest.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Converting a couple of these test plans into PractiTest was amazing and made a world of difference."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"qTest has probably doubled our efficiency."
"It is the single source for repository and traceability."
"Overall, the solution has increased testing efficiency by about 60 percent, compared to what they were doing before."
"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."
"On a weekly basis, for reporting it has definitely saved at least 50 percent of our time, if not more."
"It has taken us to the next level, in a very positive way, in the management of our overall test cases."
"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."
 

Cons

"There are some features that I would like added: an option to export a part of tests with steps."
"It does not offer server installation, only software as a service."
"PractiTest practically requires a lot of sandboxing, demos with their team, and online tutorials."
"It doesn't allow you to connect to multiple different bug tracking tools at the same time."
"Needs to improve adding the ability to run tests multiple times and setting different parameters."
"Yes, there are times when server is very slow in response."
"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."
"The installation of the software could be streamlined. We pay for the on-premise support and they help us a lot, but the installation is something which is very command-line oriented."
"The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved."
"I really can't stand the Defects module. It's not easy to use."
"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."
"The graphical reports, API integration with the customized automation test tools and support for the same need to be improved."
"The installation of the software could be streamlined."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is probably in the middle, it's not the cheapest but it's not the most expensive."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
"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."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 a year."
"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 a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,422 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
8%
Insurance Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise1
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise16
 

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...
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...
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
qTest
 

Overview

 

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
Find out what your peers are saying about PractiTest vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,422 professionals have used our research since 2012.