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

QMetry Test Management vs Tricentis qTest comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

QMetry Test Management
Ranking in Test Management Tools
16th
Average Rating
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tricentis qTest
Ranking in Test Management Tools
5th
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 May 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of QMetry Test Management is 1.6%, down from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 6.2%, down from 16.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis qTest6.2%
QMetry Test Management1.6%
Other92.2%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

VinayKumar17 - PeerSpot reviewer
Team Lead at Graebert India
Helped with agile testing, provides exploratory testing and screen capture capabilities but visibility of test cases could be improved
QMetry has different aspects. It provides exploratory testing and screen capture capabilities while running tests. It has a recorder integrated. If you run a test on an application, it will record every aspect of it. For example, if you execute a user scenario, it will record what the user does within the application and generate a script. This can also be used for quick automation. Moreover, if we have an automation framework, QMetry can integrate with it. QMetry can also handle load testing in web-based applications. We have integrated it with a bug-tracking system, but not for automation. It was not difficult to integrate it. This integration was mainly for reporting purposes, such as creating reports directly from QMetry.
reviewer2356440 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best benefit was for new hires. We used to write our test cases in simple English within QMetry, so anyone who knew English could understand them. This helped with training new hires."
"Tricentis qTest brought benefits by providing all test cases in one central repository with easy access."
"The solution works very well for test management and it also automates a lot of the testing functions so that you don't have to manage them in Excel spreadsheets."
"qTest has probably doubled our efficiency."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"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."
"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 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."
"It is the single source for repository and traceability."
 

Cons

"For me, the visibility could be improved. When executing a test case, you needed to open it separately to read the steps."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
"You can add what I believe are called suites and modules. I opened a ticket on this as to what's the difference. And it seems there's very little difference. In some places, the documentation says there's no difference. You just use them to organize how you want. But they're not quite the same because there are some options you can do under one and not the other. That gets confusing. But since they are very close to the same, people use them differently and that creates a lack of consistency."
"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."
"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."
"There is some room for improving the documentation for the APIs that they expose."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
"I would really love to find a way to get the results, into qTest Manager, of Jenkins' executing my Selenium scripts, so that when I look at everything I can look at the whole rather than the parts. Right now, I can only see what happens manually. Automation-wise, we track it in bulk, as opposed to the discrete test cases that are performed. So that connection point would be really interesting for me."
"I'd like to see better integration in the platform so that there is a testing automation continuum, where customers can easily mature through qTest and Tosca functionalities."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"QMetry was cheaper than Xray, which was based on the number of users."
"The price I was quoted is just under $60,000 for 30 licenses, annually, and that's with a 26.5 percent discount."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"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."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
9%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for QMetry Test Management?
QMetry was cheaper than Xray, which was based on the number of users. It was around $10d per user, while QMetry was closer to $4 per user. So it's about half the price.
What needs improvement with QMetry Test Management?
QMetry team upgrade features based on the number of users experiencing certain problems. If fewer users encounter an issue, they may not address it. They have a different concept where feature deve...
What is your primary use case for QMetry Test Management?
We use it for test case management. We used it to define valid and invalid inputs and to create tests for both scenarios. This involved manual testing, such as boundary value analysis and exceeding...
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

Healthland, Stanford University, Solid Fire, Proteus, Epocrates, Cognifide, Exo, Holmes Corporation, Global Communication, University of Sydney
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText, IDERA, UiPath and others in Test Management Tools. Updated: April 2026.
893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.