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

SpecFlow vs Tricentis qTest comparison

 

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

SpecFlow
Ranking in Test Management Tools
22nd
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
4
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 June 2026, in the Test Management Tools category, the mindshare of SpecFlow is 2.1%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tricentis qTest is 5.8%, down from 16.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tricentis qTest5.8%
SpecFlow2.1%
Other92.1%
Test Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SD
Senior QA Automation Engineer at AMCS Group
Ensures efficient testing and validation of both business and technical requirements
In terms of improvement, SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool. While it offers a balanced flexibility, setting it up might require more effort compared to some licensed products that handle everything. However, SpecFlow is a framework, not an automation tool, so the actual automation is carried out through tools like Selenium. Despite setup complexities, the framework itself serves its purpose effectively. In future releases of SpecFlow, it would be beneficial to have some built-in methods for common actions like opening and closing browsers or implementing loops. Having predefined libraries for these functions would save automation engineers time and make the framework more user-friendly. While I'm not sure if such features already exist, they could be valuable, especially for those working on web applications. It would provide a generic and optimized solution that anyone can easily implement without worrying about performance issues.
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 most valuable feature of the solution is unit testing...It is also an easy-to-use and user-friendly product that can easily adapt to any framework."
"SpecFlow's best feature is the ability to add additional layers to the programming."
"The initial setup is easy."
"One of the most valuable features of SpecFlow for us is its risk identification capabilities."
"It helps us to write down the scenarios in Gherkin and write down the implementation of each step and scenario."
"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."
"On a weekly basis, for reporting it has definitely saved at least 50 percent of our time, if not more."
"The JIRA integration is really important to us because it allows our business analysts to see test results inside the JIRA ticket and that we have met the definition of "done," and have made sure we tested to the requirements of the story."
"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."
"We have also seen a reduction in critical defects, by half now, over the last three months, and overall, the solution has increased testing efficiency by at least 50 percent."
"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."
"Overall, it's better than Quality Center in the ways that I have explained."
 

Cons

"SpecFlow would be improved with the addition of functionality reporting, which would be really helpful for automation testing."
"There should be more integration with the application life cycle management tools, including integration with Jira and Azure DevOps."
"Regarding improvement, it would be good if SpecFlow could provide chain testing, which it currently doesn't allow."
"I'd prefer in TFS if we could be writing test cases, not in the old classical version. We should be writing in Gherkin and then automatically have it convert that Gherkin test case into SpecFlow feature files."
"SpecFlow's installation and configuration can be a bit challenging due to its flexibility as an open-source tool."
"One of the things I noticed was the reporting part wasn't very good."
"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."
"The support for Tricentis qTest has room for improvement. The response could be better."
"As an admin, I'm unable to delete users. I'm only able to make a user inactive."
"For UFT to Tosca migration, scripts need to be rewritten as there are no automatic converters available."
"The graphical reports, API integration with the customized automation test tools and support for the same need to be improved."
"Could use additional integration so that there is a testing automation continuum."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SpecFlow is an open-source product."
"SpecFlow is open-source and free of charge."
"It's quite a few times more costly than other tools on the market."
"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."
"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."
"For the 35 concurrent licenses, we pay something like $35,000 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."
"Our license price point is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000 a year."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

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

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

SpecFlow+
qTest
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft, Caterpillar, Siemens, Charles Schwab, IBM, Deloitte, Accenture, Philips, Dell, Deutsche Bank
McKesson, Accenture, Nationwide Insurance, Allianz, Telstra, Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton (LVMH PCIS), and Vodafone
Find out what your peers are saying about SpecFlow vs. Tricentis qTest and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.