Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

SmartBear TestComplete 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

SmartBear TestComplete
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (9th), Regression Testing Tools (5th), Test Automation Tools (6th)
Tricentis qTest
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Test Management Tools (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Quality Assurance solutions, they serve different purposes. SmartBear TestComplete is designed for Test Automation Tools and holds a mindshare of 5.9%, down 6.6% compared to last year.
Tricentis qTest, on the other hand, focuses on Test Management Tools, holds 14.6% mindshare, up 12.7% since last year.
Test Automation Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SmartBear TestComplete5.9%
Tricentis Tosca20.8%
OpenText Functional Testing8.9%
Other64.4%
Test Automation Tools
Test Management Tools Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tricentis qTest14.6%
OpenText Application Quality Management12.7%
TestRail10.5%
Other62.2%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.
SamuLehikoinen - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient and collaborative software testing providing comprehensive test management capabilities, seamless integration with various tools and impressive manual regression testing features
The user interface has a somewhat outdated design, which is certainly an area that could be improved. Some of the modules appear to be loosely connected, but despite these aspects, our overall experience with the tool was positive. When you begin integrating your testing tools with qTest, the available examples may not be very clear, and I believe this is an area that could be enhanced, particularly in terms of providing clearer integration guidance. While the tool's integration with various testing tools is impressive, there is room for improvement in showcasing more cases and benefits, especially through additional videos and documentation.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product is stable for what we are currently using it for, and it is sufficient for us."
"The integration with various tools is important."
"Test items, project variables helps in managing automation suite and scheduling execution."
"TestComplete fits almost perfectly with a large amount of stacks, such as Delphi, C#, Java and web applications."
"It is very easy to maintain tests with this tool. It covers all necessary items in the test plan. The most painful item in testing is maintenance. When changes occur, the tests should be maintained."
"The reporting is ready to use and doesn't require any setup."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"Selenium integration."
"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."
"The integration with Selenium and other tools is one of the valuable features. Importing of test cases is also good."
"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."
"UI and UX are pretty easy to understand without much of a problem."
"The solution's real-time integration with JIRA is seamless."
"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. It saves us time and improves quality as well."
"Works well for test management and is a good testing repository."
"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."
 

Cons

"We were testing handheld barcode scanners running WindowsCE with many menus of warehouse functions, and our biggest problem was the timing between input and responses."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The artificial intelligence needs to be improved."
"The initial setup of SmartBear TestComplete was complex."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"During the distribution of our regression test cases, the control IDs are not always recognized correctly."
"At times, identifying or locating an element can be somewhat challenging. However, in a recent test update, they introduced Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability. This introduction has reduced the challenges to some extent, as we can now utilize OCR if the normal method doesn't work. Nevertheless, there is still significant potential for improvement in TestComplete's ability to identify various object elements. I don't have any specific concerns to mention. I have observed significant improvements in TestComplete over the past few years, especially in its support for highly dynamic object elements used in products like Salesforce Dynamics 365. In earlier versions, there were numerous challenges, but the current version is far superior to its predecessors."
"SmartBear products generally have a weak link when it comes to integration with other test management tools like Inflectra."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"qTest offers a baseline feature where you can only base sort-order for a specific story or requirement on two fields. However, our company has so many criteria and has so many verticals that this baseline feature is not sufficient. We would want another field to be available in the sort order."
"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."
"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."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
"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. 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."
"Tricentis qTest's technical support team needs to improve its ability to respond to queries from users."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"The solution is around $1500. Some are perpetual licenses, and some get a yearly report card."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"We have a TestComplete 12 license."
"The product is becoming more and more expensive."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very 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."
"We're paying $19,000 a year right now for qTest, with 19 licenses. All the on-premise support is bundled into that."
"We're paying a little over $1,000 for a concurrent license."
"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."
"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."
"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 Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise20
Large Enterprise32
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I am not involved in pricing or licensing; our management team handles these aspects.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
While using SmartBear TestComplete, we are fine with the current capabilities, however, it would be beneficial to improve some performance aspects, especially the image comparison feature. Occasion...
What do you like most about Tricentis qTest?
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.
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?
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 looki...
 

Also Known As

No data available
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about SmartBear TestComplete vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: July 2020.
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.